Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

St. Bartholomew's Hospital

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she has had with the Department of Health over the future of the buildings of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [7593]

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): None, as yet; the St. Bartholomew's hospital site is still operational, and it is not likely to close for at least another five years. Obviously, my Department will be involved at the appropriate time in discussions over the future of that important historic site.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will recognise the grave disquiet that is still felt by many at the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital, after almost nine centuries of distinguished use for medical purposes. Will he assure the House that he will liaise extremely closely with the Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew Charitable Foundation, which is now linked with the special trustees and the Corporation of London, to ensure that there is an appropriate future user of that magnificent site, and that an act of medical vandalism is not followed by an act of architectural vandalism?

Mr. Sproat: I can tell my hon. Friend that a group has been set up, under Sir Ronald Grierson, to examine suitable possible uses for the site. Sir Ronald has said that, whatever use is made of the site, it will continue to have a medical association and will be used for a purpose that is suitable to its history. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Mackinlay: As a Conservative Minister, does the hon. Gentleman not get sick and tired of his colleagues criticising decisions taken by the likes of himself arid the Secretary of State for National Heritage when those decisions do not suit their colleagues' purposes—as if their colleagues have no responsibility in those matters? Is it not a matter of Conservative policy that Bart's is to close, and is it not true that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) is guilty by association? He is to blame, as are the Minister and the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Sproat: The medical future of St. Bartholomew's is a matter for the Department of Health. However, the

importance of that historical site is partially a matter for my Department, and I shall ensure that my Department fulfils entirely its obligations.

British Film Industry

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the impact of the national lottery on the British film industry [7594]

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The national lottery has had a good impact on the British film industry, which is currently enjoying an excellent year. Already, more than £60 million has been awarded to 150 projects, which includes more than £35 million for 96 film productions. That is a tremendous achievement in so short a time, and it has been welcomed by the film industry.

Mr. Jessel: As Britain has brilliant film producers, actors, actresses and other creative talent, and as the revival of the British film industry was already well under way even before the additional £60 million, to which my right hon. Friend has already referred, from the Arts Council—from lottery funds, so building on our strengths—will she join me in warmly welcoming the film industry's tremendous achievements? It is a terrific national asset.

Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly congratulate the film industry, which has had a wonderful centenary year. Last week's exhibition by the British Film Institute—"Still Moving After 100 Years"—which was very much co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), set a magnificent example. This year, more than 100 films have gone into production; the ITV network and Channel 4 have each announced more than £100 million for film; cinema admissions have exceeded £100 million; and the film festival exceeded 100,000 admissions. In the past 25 years, more than 100 Oscars have been awarded to British talent. Moreover, of the many major films made in Britain in the past year, one of them was "101 Dalmatians".

Dr. John Cunningham: Funds provided to the British film industry from the national lottery are of course welcome. However, the right hon. Lady has withdrawn from the Eurimages scheme, and apparently she intends not to join in the European guarantee fund—thereby excluding our film-makers and film industry from access to European funds. In her response to the Middleton committee, she said that she would establish a film finance forum. Will she guarantee the House that that forum will provide the British film industry with greater access to funding, and thereby make up for the shortfall that she has imposed on it by withdrawing from those schemes and by blocking our entry to others? What is her answer?

Mrs. Bottomley: The difference between the Labour party and us is that we take a strategic view on supporting the projects that will deliver a practical return. This year, we took the view that the right thing to do was to put an extra £250,000 into the National Film and Television School and to put extra money into the British Film Commission and the British Film Institute. We believe


that that is the way forward. We have been able to accept eight of the 11 recommendations of the Middleton report. On that basis, the British film industry will go from strength to strength.

National Lottery

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the impact of the national lottery on (a) the Football Trust and (b) the bingo industry; and if she will make a statement. [7595]

Mr. Sproat: The Department has received more than 80 letters in respect of Football Trust funding from Members of Parliament and football clubs, in addition to representations from the trust itself. The Department has also received representations about the impact of the national lottery on the bingo industry, which have been passed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has responsibility for bingo.

Mr. Wareing: In view of the impact of the national lottery on the Football Trust, will the Government consider allowing the smaller clubs in the Football League to implement the Taylor proposals on an extended timetable—say, to 2002 or 2003? How can the Secretary of State claim to be the champion of the bingo industry when she refuses it a level playing field with the national lottery? A level playing field would at least enable the bingo industry to advertise its own lottery.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the national lottery has had a serious effect on the finances of the Football Trust. However, we think that the trust's estimate of a shortfall of some £33 million is perhaps too high. The Football Licensing Authority has recently considered the figures and agrees that the estimate is perhaps a little too high. I hope that the trust and the FLA can work things out together. At the moment, we are certainly not thinking of increasing the time scale within which the Taylor proposals have to be implemented—we want to stick to August 1999.
As for bingo, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend will know how important the Football Trust and the bingo industry are for the north-west of Britain, and Lancashire in particular. Will he therefore liaise with the Home Secretary and ensure that, if necessary, rules are introduced to make certain that the bingo industry can, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, compete with the national lottery on a national field? Otherwise, we are likely to see the industry decline considerably in the years ahead—something that none of us wants.

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is currently considering, in the context of his review of the entire gambling industry, what further deregulation and liberalisation might help the bingo industry.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that the Football Trust has today written to all clubs in the Football League

and the Scottish League to say that the national lottery has so reduced its income that it has had to impose, with immediate effect, a moratorium on grants for the implementation of the Taylor report? In view of the dramatic decline in the trust's income, there will be an immediate halt on essential safety work at lower league clubs such as Blackpool, Portsmouth, Brighton, Luton, Exeter, East Fife, Falkirk and many more. In the light of the Secretary of State's helpful comments in the Football Trust's annual report 1995–96, highlighting the important work that lies ahead in helping smaller clubs to improve their spectator facilities by the 1999 season, will the Minister join her in meeting the trust in an attempt to remedy that worrying situation?

Mr. Sproat: As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), it is certainly true that the national lottery has had a serious impact on the Football Trust. However, as he will know, the Treasury has in effect forgone some 16 per cent. of pools duty—10 per cent. in two tranches of 5 per cent. is to help the pools industry and 6 per cent. is to go direct to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust. In addition, the Premiership has signed a deal for £743 million for television rights for four years from 1997, while the Football League is in the first year of a five-year £125 million television deal. That should all be taken into account, but I should be happy to meet the Football Trust to try to find a better solution.

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many individual prizes have been won since the national lottery was established. [7596]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As at 9 December, more than 133 million prizes had been won on the on-line game.

Mr. Brown: That is an excellent figure, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are still concerned that some of the prizes are exceptionally large, particularly in roll-over weeks? Does she agree that there is still a case for Camelot to examine whether the public would prefer 10 people to win £1 million in a weekend rather than £10 million being won by one person, as sometimes happens?

Mrs. Bottomley: The lottery remains under review, although there is no evidence so far that winning one of the large prizes has any adverse effect. Like others, I have studied Hunter Davies's book, "Living on the Lottery". On the whole, it told a favourable tale of what it is like to win a substantial prize. The allocation of prizes is designed to maximise the return to the good causes. In roll-over weeks, far more people play the national lottery. That means that even more good causes are supported. Seven good causes in my hon. Friend's constituency have already been assisted and I am sure that he will want to know that the national total is 10,394 awards, with £2.78 billion raised for good causes. There has not been a more effective lottery anywhere in the world.

Mr. Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that some prizes have been claimed by under-age purchasers? Has she noticed the early-day motion signed by several hon. Members expressing concern about the ease with which


under-age people can purchase tickets, especially scratchcards? Would it not be better to have further controls under the licensed betting office system with an age threshold of 18? That would obviously curtail many purchases by under-age children.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman in condemning under-age play. I welcome the recent announcements by the Office of the National Lottery and Camelot about the further action that they intend to take. One of the most effective sanctions is the removal of the on-line game. Some 35,000 retail outlets currently benefit from being part of the national lottery, providing them with an average of £8,000 a year. The greatest sanction is the removal of that income. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his concerns. We shall continue to be vigilant in ensuring that under-age children do not play.

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many proposals from Kent have received funding in the various categories from the national lottery. [7597]

Mr. Sproat: A total of 171 lottery awards have been made in Kent, to a total value of more than £15 million. Eleven awards each have been made to the arts and the heritage, 97 to charities and voluntary organisations and 52 to sports projects.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we in Kent are grateful for that, but we are still waiting for a major award. The county town is striving to create a new park along the river Medway, to give the town the ambience that it deserves. Can he give us any encouragement that the project—now being put forward for the second time of asking—has a chance of receiving support?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend may be glad to know that, of the 58 county and unitary authorities, Kent comes 22nd in the list for the total amount received and eighth in the list for the number of projects for which awards have been made. I know from our previous conversations that my hon. Friend is very keen on the Maidstone river park project. It is up to the commission to decide whether to give it money, but it is a splendid project and I am sure that it will get a fair review.

Sporting Ambassadors Initiative

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the sporting ambassadors initiative. [7598]

Mr. Sproat: Sir Colin Cowdrey has been appointed to chair a new committee to look at ways of encouraging more sporting ambassadors to visit schools. The committee, which has Roger Black, Steven Redgrave and Jo Durie among its members, met for the first time last week. It is the intention that the scheme will be up and running in schools before the end of the current academic year.

Mr. Arnold: Is that not wonderful news for sportsmen and sportswomen up and down the country? The scheme

will enhance Britain's performance in athletics and in sport generally around the world. Will not Britain's performance be further enhanced by the British Academy of Sport, at a cost of £100 million? We in north-west Kent are particularly delighted to see that the bid for the British Academy of Sport, from north-west Kent, Kent Thames-side, has been shortlisted by my hon. Friend. We look forward to it becoming a success because, if it is, the facilities in north-west Kent will very much enhance the prospect of London being the site for the 2004 Olympics.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. The sporting ambassadors scheme will be a tremendous boost for boys and girls at school because their heroines and heroes will come to encourage, enthuse and inspire them in sport. Getting sport back at the heart of school life is part of our overarching strategy for sport, which spreads from schools right up to the eight scholarships for elite athletes and the British Academy of Sport, to which my hon. Friend referred. I know that the Kent application, which I have seen—I met a delegation earlier this year before all the bids came in—is extremely good. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tremendous support that he continues to give to that bid for the British Academy of Sport.

Mr. Maxton: What is the point of sending ambassadors of sport into schools to encourage sport when there have been cuts in local government expenditure? The city of Glasgow is having to reduce its ability to rent out sporting facilities to clubs and it is reducing the number of sporting facilities in schools in Glasgow. What is the point of encouraging people to take part in sport when sporting facilities are being cut in that way?

Mr. Sproat: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he should ask the Labour local education authority why facilities in schools in Glasgow are being reduced. Secondly, I have never pretended to the House that I was satisfied with sport in schools at the moment, whether in Scotland or in England. A sporting ambassadors scheme that gets stars of sport into schools must lead to a big increase in activity. It will be up and running this year and I believe that every person who is keen on sport will support the idea.

Voluntary Sector

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on developments in the voluntary sector since 1979. [7599]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Since 1979, the Government have consistently developed policies to encourage a healthy and effective voluntary sector, to encourage volunteering and to promote effective relations between voluntary organisations and Government Departments. The Government are committed to continuing those policies in the future.

Mr. Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast bulk of lottery awards goes to charities and voluntary bodies? Will she join me in congratulating the Ethiniog Cheshire home in Colwyn bay on its successful bid for almost £200,000 to build a hydrotherapy pool, a gymnasium and other facilities for the rehabilitation of


brain damage victims? It is a much-needed development and I very much hope that the health authority will help to take the scheme forward with further funding for a six-bed unit.

Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly congratulate the Cheshire home; the award will be an excellent Christmas present. Tomorrow, the caring charities announce their final tranche before Christmas of projects for health disability and care. So far, they have awarded £360 million to 5,400 schemes throughout the country. I am sure that all of them will achieve the amount of good in their local community that the Cheshire home has in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Flynn: The House will congratulate that home on its splendid work, which is carried out by many people who voluntarily sacrifice their time. Is it not true, however, that, despite the growing number of people who need a helping hand or an attentive ear, many of the services that existed in the 1970s have disappeared because funding to public services has shrunk every year? Sadly, many of those services have to be provided by the voluntary sector, which has resulted in an uncertainty of provision by amateurs, who cannot be relied on to maintain a full professional service.

Mrs. Bottomley: I regret the hon. Gentleman's rather cynical comments. As the Government have created more wealth, we have been able to invest much more in our public services than the Labour party ever did. The successful and flourishing economy enabled us to put an extra £1.6 billion into the national health service this year. In addition, the extra money from the lottery means that even more help can be provided to even more people. In particular, I celebrate the activities of those involved in volunteering, which is part of a civilised and compassionate society. I welcome the recent announcement by the Charity Board endorsing volunteering schemes that encourage the involvement of young people.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend confirm her support for the Community Development Foundation, which has the capacity to cover hundreds of thousands of informal volunteers? Will she confirm that it will continue to have high priority in her Department's expenditure plans?

Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly support my hon. Friend in his work as chairman of the Community Development Foundation, which has made an important impact and has encouraged the establishment of smaller voluntary groups. I am announcing the establishment of the volunteering partnership forum for England—a group of experts who will advise me on volunteering policy and practice. I shall chair the forum jointly with Mr. Nicholas Ward. A particular focus of the "make a difference" initiative was to encourage young people to become involved in their communities in a positive way. The first target of the volunteering partnership forum for England will be to carry forward the pledge that every young person between 15 and 25 who so wishes will have an opportunity to volunteer. Those involved in the Community Development Foundation will be members of the volunteering partnership forum for England.

Arts Promotion

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department spent on publicity for arts promotion in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94 [7600]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Art galleries, theatres and other arts bodies are responsible for their own promotional activities. My Department has no specific budget for arts promotion. Much of our work is concerned with developing policies to improve access to the arts for everybody—young and old.

Mr. Cunningham: Given that answer, can the Minister explain why we get at least three publicity publications a week from her Department? Will she tell us how much they cost?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can certainly make available the Department's information budget. However, the number of documents produced by my Department is nothing like as significant as the hon. Gentleman implies. This year, we set out a policy, "Setting the Scene" to encourage the involvement of young people in the arts. We take the view that, although buildings are important, it is even more important to involve the next generation in artistic activities. Similarly, we wish more people to know how to claim lottery awards and we have encouraged the Arts Council to promote widely information about how to access lottery funds to ensure the widest possible spread. I would be happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with any further information.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people think that the arts have done rather well as a result of the national lottery, the generosity of her Department and private sponsorship and that most of us share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that enough is enough?

Mrs. Bottomley: I take my hon. Friend's comments on board. The arts have never had so much opportunity. An extra £695 million has been provided in the past 18 months. In addition, it has been possible to maintain funding for the arts this year and provide more than £3 million more than had been anticipated. I was delighted to see the comments of the distinguished Richard Eyre who said,
I am happy to eat humble pie",
when he realised precisely how much the Government were putting into the arts as well as the substantial contributions from the national lottery.

Important Heritage Sites

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she proposes to take to improve public access to, the presentation of, and the information provided at, important heritage sites. [7601]

Mr. Sproat: The main organisations concerned with the presentation of important heritage sites are English Heritage, the Historic Royal Palaces agency, and the


National Trust. Those bodies have all made great improvements in recent years in the presentation of their properties to the public.

Mr. Shaw: I assure my hon. Friend that Dover castle is looking in first-class shape these days. It has defended the nation and helped to keep out invaders from Europe for some 900 years. It is a splendid example of the nation's heritage. There have been plans and proposals for converting the officers' mess in Dover castle to improve the presentation and opportunities for visitors. Are those plans progressing?

Mr. Sproat: I can tell my hon. Friend about the splendid aspect of Dover castle as a whole, which English Heritage has various proposals to enhance even further over the coming years at considerable expense—millions of pounds. My hon. Friend will know that, in 1981, the floors of the old officers' mess in Dover castle were in such rotten condition that the Department of the Environment gutted the building. English Heritage is now investigating whether a viable scheme to use the old officers' mess as a hotel might be forthcoming, and would readily welcome such a scheme.

Mr. Tony Banks: Many Labour Members would like to see the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) strung up by his fleshy parts in the dungeon of the castle.
One of the areas in which there is very poor signing of heritage sites is here in the capital city. Has the Minister read the report that came out today from the British Road Federation, on signposting and general information in London? The signposting in London is appalling. It is not surprising that loads of Londoners get lost; God knows how the tourists manage. Can the Minister do something about that? Will he speak to the Department of Transport and get something done for London?

Mr. Sproat: I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall certainly look at it. I do not accept that the signing is as bad as he says. More than 50 per cent. of all tourists to this country come to London, and they continue to come. Last year, a record number of tourists came here, so matters cannot be as bad as the hon. Gentleman describes. However, everything can be improved. I shall look at the report and see what improvements I can recommend.

Sir Irvine Patnick: One of the buildings that could be joining the illustrious list is Park Hill flats in Sheffield, which were built in the 1950s. As residents say, how can such a concrete mass—I repeat, concrete mass—ever be included in such a list? I agree with them. It is a monstrosity, and I am surprised that it has been listed or even recommended for listing as a heritage site or site of historic value.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend speaks for many when he expresses surprise that that block was listed. It is true—we may come to this in another question—that listed buildings are listed not just because of their beauty, but because of their alleged architectural innovation. No doubt, that is one of the reasons why it was suggested that that block should be listed.

National Lottery Awards

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will introduce proposals to ensure a more equitable distribution of lottery awards by the size of population in each geographic area; and if she will make a statement. [7602]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have instructed the lottery distributors to be aware of the need to ensure a fair and even spread of awards throughout the United Kingdom. Although my directions to the distributing bodies prevent them from soliciting particular applications, they may, where necessary, target their publicity efforts towards certain areas to encourage the submission of the right quality and quantity of applications.

Mr. Barnes: When we speak of lottery awards, we are talking about big spondulicks: £40 for every man, woman and child in the country has been paid out so far in lottery awards, so reasonable distribution of those awards is important. Awards are often more readily accessible under the National Lottery Charities Board provision, yet only one seventh of the money goes to it. Should not money be moved from projects such as the millennium fund to the board, so that local voluntary organisations can get access to it?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will find that, as the different series of awards are announced, all communities, and all parts of the country, will benefit. I have been concerned about the lack of applications from his area, and have visited it to try to encourage more applications to be submitted. In the past quarter, the biggest increase in awards has been in the west midlands, so I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's thoughts in mind. I do not believe that it is sensible to tinker with the different lottery award streams, and I hope that those involved in arts and sport will realise that the Labour party is threatening to reduce—for the first time ever—the amount for such causes.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, apart from the large projects, 370 village halls and 250 millennium greens are involved, and many coastal restorations and canal schemes are going ahead. The Millennium Commission announced today another £40 million for canal restoration, regeneration and a temple in the west midlands.

Mr. Skinner: East midlands, not west.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that distribution of national lottery awards is important because it determines the distribution of the 100,000 jobs that such awards are sustaining around the country? Is she aware that quite a number of jobs are being sustained in my constituency where, for example, the Castle Point volunteer bureau recently received £28,000 from the national lottery, which was very well received?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. He will recall the words of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who first described the lottery as a threat to jobs and
the unacceptable face of nationalisation."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 731.]


The Henley Centre predicted that 110,000 new jobs would be created over five years as a result of the national lottery. Investment in Doncaster, Portsmouth harbour, Newcastle and Bristol, and major schemes throughout the country are bringing new opportunities, jobs and prosperity to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Dr. John Cunningham: On the equitable distribution of lottery and millennium funds, does the right hon. Lady agree that, although we want a successful exhibition at Greenwich, it should not take place at any price or be allowed to pre-empt more and more Millennium Commission funds, which should legitimately go to other parts of the United Kingdom? If she really wants all-party support for future decisions about that exhibition, will she ensure that deliberations and decision-taking are inclusive rather than exclusive, as they have been until very recently? Will she also finally end the exclusion of Greenwich borough council from the discussions? Is not it absurd to be planning a project in the borough, which will perhaps cost £1 billion, and not include the borough's leadership in consideration of it?

Mrs. Bottomley: The millennium exhibition is an extremely exciting prospect for Britain; it is Britain's shopfront as we go into a new century. It is a complex project, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of some of the detailed figures involved. I hope that it will be possible to make more announcements in the near future. As he knows, the Millennium Commission and, indeed, the Government are quite as concerned as he is not to sign a blank cheque, but to ensure that there is good value for grant. The project provides a real opportunity for Britain to celebrate the new millennium.
Alongside the project is the festival involving the nation as a whole, £200 million of millennium awards and the great range of projects throughout the country, some of which I have just mentioned, such as those involving village halls, village greens, woodlands and canal restoration. I hope that everyone will be encourage by the canal restoration in Huddersfield, the Ballymena town park, the Yorkshire dales project, the Croydon lighting scheme, the Norfolk broads announcement, and the 205th scout group to receive support—this time in Manningtree, Essex.

St. Pancras Station

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received on the future of St. Pancras station and St. Pancras chambers; and if she will make a statement. [7603]

Mr. Sproat: Discussions on the future of those buildings have taken place between English Heritage, the Department of Transport and London and Continental Railways. Both my Department and the Department of the Environment have kept in close touch with progress, and we have of course been aware of English Heritage's views. We have also received representations from the Victorian Society and from one member of the public.

Mr. Howarth: Why have the Government abandoned the normal conservation controls on the grade I listed buildings of St. Pancras, which are of prime importance

aesthetically and historically? Does the Minister accept that the heritage provisions of the rail link legislation amount to little more than vague statements of intent, omit to cover key areas of the work, and remove the Secretary of State's ultimate power to decide on major aspects? What is the point of having a Department of National Heritage if it will not stand up to the Department of Transport and is supine before the bulldozers of private investors?

Mr. Sproat: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the heritage deed encompassed in the new Bill will give the right balance between the interests of aesthetics and listed buildings and the need to provide a terminal for the chunnel link. Under the heritage deed provisions, for listed buildings such as St. Pancras chambers, agreement will have to be reached between the railway authorities and the listed building authorities.
Only when railway technicalities could affect the aesthetics of the station—for instance, in extensions to platforms or roofs over those extensions—will only consultation, and not agreement, be required. Even in cases in which agreement does not have to be reached, there is provision for appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State for the Environment. A proper balance has been struck to deal with the fears that the hon. Gentleman outlined.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that, in addition to St. Pancras station, a growing number of important public buildings, including several key Government buildings in Whitehall, are either empty or becoming empty? Do the Government have any policy at all for dealing with those? Will he accept that flogging them off, or trying to get the maximum rent, as the Government tried to do with the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, is simply not the right policy, and that a much more imaginative policy is needed to put those great public buildings into public use?

Mr. Sproat: Indeed, it is not simply a question of getting the maximum amount of money—as the hon. Gentleman said. He talked about the need for imagination; that need is being met. In every case in which such buildings are offered to bidders, we consider bidders whose purposes are consonant with the traditions of the building and who will maintain its listed standards.

Listed Buildings

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings in England are listed; and if she will make a statement. [7604]

Mr. Sproat: We estimate that there are about 500,000 listed buildings in England.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I recognise that various factors are involved in any assessment of which buildings should be listed as being of architectural importance and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) said, because some modern buildings have been included, there must be an element of subjective judgment. I regret that no buildings designed by me have yet been listed. Does my hon. Friend accept that, now that we have half a million listed buildings in England, the


Government's policy should be centred on conserving those buildings? Does he further agree that spot listing should not be encouraged and that there should be a moratorium before there is any further review of which buildings should be listed?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is entirely right, in that many people feel that the number of listed buildings has increased dramatically—perhaps excessively—over the past few years. The Government have encouraged English Heritage to consider certain themes—in addition to the geographical location of the buildings—such as old railways, old shops, schools and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), certain buildings displaying innovative architectural techniques that ought to be considered.
None the less, I am sure that we have not yet got entirely right the proper considerations for listing buildings. My Department recently published a Green Paper, and there have been consultations on it; we shall take fully into account my hon. Friend's valid points.

Mr. Corbyn: As the Minister is discussing listed buildings, may I draw his attention to two London buildings, Battersea power station and county hall, which require some urgent action by him? He should act to prevent Battersea power station from falling down and ensure that it is put to appropriate use given the state in which it was left by the last speculators. Will he also save county hall from the ravages of multinational hotel prospectors?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman has alluded to two extremely important buildings. I share his concern that they should not be allowed to deteriorate, and he will be glad to hear that they are not deteriorating. Representatives of English Heritage visit Battersea power station every few weeks, but I cannot recall exactly the frequency of visits paid to the old Greater London council building. They are making absolutely certain, however, that those buildings are in a decent condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Magistrates Courts (Suffolk)

Mr. Spring: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to visit magistrates courts in Suffolk, to discuss possible court closures and amalgamations. [7623]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I am due to visit Haverhill and Mildenhall magistrates courts on Monday 28 January 1997 as part of a programme of visits to help maintain my Department's good working relationship with the individual magistrates courts committees, which are responsible for running those courts.

Mr. Spring: When my hon. Friend comes to Suffolk, he can be assured of a warm welcome, but when he meets magistrates from the Haverhill and north-west Suffolk benches he will also learn of their considerable concern about the future of those courts and their potential closure. It is my firm belief that local justice should be meted out

by local magistrates in local courthouses. I must tell my hon. Friend that, should the current proposals be advanced further, I shall fight them every inch of the way both in Suffolk and in the House.

Mr. Streeter: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has spoken out on behalf of his constituents—he is well known in this place for doing so. There is no proposal to close the courthouses that he has mentioned. I look forward greatly to my visit to Suffolk in January. I know that I will receive a warm welcome at the hands of my hon. Friend's constituents, just as he received a warm welcome from me this afternoon.

Mr. Olner: When the Minister has completed his visit to Somerset—

Hon. Members: Suffolk.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better get his question in order: the Minister is not going to Somerset. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the substantive question concerns Suffolk alone.

Mr. Olner: I apologise, Madam Speaker. When the Minister has visited Suffolk, will he also visit Nuneaton magistrates court in Warwickshire because, just like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring)—

Madam Speaker: Order. I take to heart matters of such enormous importance, but the question is about Suffolk. I must be firm about this, and I call Mr. Llwyd.

Magistrates Courts (Closure)

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the procedure for intervention by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the matter of a dispute about closure of a magistrates court; and if he will make a statement. [7624]

Mr. Streeter: There is no procedure for intervention as magistrates courts are not Crown property. The Lord Chancellor is involved in a dispute over a magistrates court only when an appeal is made by a contributing local authority against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. In the event of a such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor will call for a report from both parties and make a final decision, which is binding. In the absence of such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of my concern about my constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which is one of the largest geographically in the United Kingdom. The magistrates clerk has circulated the preposterous idea of closing the last but one court, which would leave the entire constituency to be served by one magistrates court. The Minister is aware that an appeal is pending. Will he please meet a small delegation led by me as soon as possible so that that preposterous and ridiculous notion can be put to rest at last?

Mr. Streeter: If an appeal in relation to the court that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is pending, it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from his constituency, as I have from other hon. Members in the past few weeks. I look forward to that, and I will listen carefully to the case that he puts for the retention of the courts in his constituency. We recognise that, in rural areas in particular, the distance that people must travel to court and the cost of their journey are significant matters.

Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the possible closure of magistrates courts, or any other function of any other court, will my hon. Friend consider the recent incident in which a convicted murderer telephoned, or received calls from, a newspaper? That caused enormous distress—

Madam Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with magistrates courts?

Mr. Greenway: I am referring to the function of a court in achieving the conviction of an individual, and the subsequent behaviour of that individual.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not describe his question in that way. The main question deals with magistrates courts, and so must the answer.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend raises an important point concerning the magistrates courts in his constituency and people who have passed through them in relation to offences that they may have committed. He speaks for many people when he describes the offence that has been caused by the incident that he mentioned, and his points are well made.

Hon. Members: Was that a challenge to you, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: It certainly was a challenge, and I do not accept that the question put by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was correct in following the substantive question.

Mr. Boateng: In view of the widespread concern about the erosion of locally administered justice, will the Minister revisit the arrangements for the funding of local magistrates courts committees to see whether we ought to have a better formula than is currently applied? Does not the present formula lead to overfunding in some areas and underfunding in others, and to an end to locally administered justice?

Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed it by a mile. The Lord Chancellor and I are committed to local justice being dispensed by local people for local people, and the funding is in place. The hon. Gentleman commits the Labour party to yet more spending every time he gets to his feet in the House. Unless he can come to the Dispatch Box and tell us where that extra money would come from, he will have no credibility in this place.

Legal Aid

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to avoid legal aid being granted for vexatious litigation against schools. [7627]

Mr. Streeter: It is for the Legal Aid Board to decide whether to grant legal aid. To qualify for legal aid, applicants must satisfy the merits and means test. Because of our concern that too many trivial and undeserving cases are being funded by the taxpayer, the Government have proposed reforms in the White Paper, "Striking the Balance", which will target resources on the most deserving cases. In the mean time, my officials are discussing with both branches of the legal profession ways in which decisions under the existing merits test can be further improved.

Mr. Arnold: Would it not be an absolute scandal if yobbish failures were to use public money to sue their own schools? Would not that scandal be compounded if public money had to be diverted from education to allow those schools to defend themselves? If we are to have such an appalling waste of money, would it not be appropriate for the schools to use that money to sue the very yobs who failed to use that valuable commodity—their education? More than £1 billion of valuable public money is being spent on legal aid. Is that not an appalling waste in far too many cases? Would that not be compounded by the rather extraordinary idea of Lord Irvine of Lairg—the legal godfather of the Leader of the Opposition—who wants to extend the use of legal aid to industrial tribunals? Does not that show that, wherever one looks, the Labour party intends to waste more and more taxpayers' money?

Mr. Streeter: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks for many people in expressing concern about the amount of taxpayers' money spent on wasteful, trivial and undeserving cases. He refers to the case featured recently in the newspapers about people intending to sue their schools in relation to their lack of achievement. I can tell him and the House that no application has been made for legal aid for such a case—nor, I hope, will any be made. He is right to speak out on this case. If the Labour party ever formed a Government, it would be a disgrace if it spent yet more money not just on a law centre in every town, but on tribunals. Labour would rapidly become not just the prisoner's friend, but the barrister's meal ticket.

Magistrates Committees and Courts (Midlands)

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the proposed merger of Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull magistrates committees and courts. [7628]

Mr. Streeter: I have so far received 216 letters in response to the consultation document proposing an amalgamation of the Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull magistrates courts committees.

Mr. Cunningham: Given the concern expressed by magistrates, members of the public and organisations, will


the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Coventry to discuss the issue? Does he accept that we are not talking about more money for magistrates courts, but that he is proposing cuts in the services for magistrates courts?

Mr. Streeter: We are certainly not proposing any cuts in the services for magistrates courts, but I recognise the strength of feeling in the midlands about the proposed amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees in the hon. Gentleman's area. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from hon. Members in respect of that proposed amalgamation—I have already received several letters of representation on the subject from hon. Members.

European Court of Human Rights

Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals for reform of procedures were made by the Lord Chancellor during his recent visit to the European Court of Human Rights. [7630]

Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor had a wide-ranging and fruitful discussion with members of the court and the Commission, and advocated, once again, British proposals to improve the procedure of the European Court of Human Rights; to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court; and to ensure that proper weight is given to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that that court, which is nothing to do with the European Union, has a pretty dismal record on pronouncements on subjects that affect this country, which it does not really understand? Will the better quality of judges, which must be welcomed, ensure that we do not have a repetition of the deplorable judgment in the so-called death on the rock case? Is not the recent blasphemy case, in which the court used the doctrine of marginal appreciation, a sign that common sense is, at last, breaking through?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes some important points about the European Court of Human Rights. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union, a point that is not widely understood in the country. In fact, the court flows from a convention on human rights that was largely drafted by British people after the second world war. It is increasingly important as more and more countries sign up to the Council of Europe—for example, Russia and Croatia are signing up to the convention.
My hon. Friend makes the important point that, in the past, decisions have been made that caused grave offence in this country. It is to be hoped that our proposals in respect of the improvement of the quality of judges, and other procedural improvements—especially taking into account the national culture of each of the signatory countries—will significantly improve the court's performance.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that it is not right to pick and choose decisions made by a court? I invite the Minister to look at history: it was that court,

with the connivance of the Tory party, that effectively destroyed the pre-entry and post-entry closed shop in this country.

Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to hear that. The court has obviously performed a much more valuable function that I had ever dared to imagine. Of course it is wrong to pick and choose which decisions to adopt in this country. What I have said is that, because of proposals that we have made, the performance of the European Court of Human Rights in future is likely to be better and more acceptable to the British people than it has been in the past.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's legal system and the way in which we protect people who are discriminated against in various ways are emulated by other countries throughout the world and that we need no court in Europe telling us how to legislate?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes the important point that British justice is well known and our standards on human rights are much admired throughout the world, but it is important that we remain involved in the convention, so as to enable other countries that are developing the sort of society that we enjoy to establish high standards of human rights within their borders, hopefully with British help.

Judges and Magistrates (Ethnic Minorities)

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to increase the number of judges, masters and registrars of the High Court and magistrates from ethnic minorities. [7631]

Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor has taken active steps to encourage people of ethnic minority origin to put themselves forward for consideration both for the professional judiciary and for the lay magistracy. He appoints and recommends for the professional judiciary the candidates who are best qualified, regardless of ethnic origin. With regard to the lay magistracy, he attaches great importance to the requirement that, subject to suitability for appointment on merit, lay benches reflect the community that they serve.

Mr. Cohen: Did the Parliamentary Secretary see the recent "Newsnight" programme that showed that black and Asian Britons are emerging from our academic institutions with qualifications in droves, but not finding their proper place in the British establishment? What are the Government doing to ensure that more black and Asian Britons become judges and magistrates?

Mr. Streeter: I know that the concept is alien to new Labour, but judges are appointed on merit, and at any moment the bench will reflect the legal profession from which its members are drawn. Things are moving in the right direction, but the most important thing is that we have judges of the right intellectual capacity, wisdom and common sense. We are moving in the right direction—an increasing number of people from all backgrounds are becoming judges—but we shall continue to appoint judges on merit and on nothing else.

European Council (Dublin)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 13 and 14 December, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library of the House.
The main issues on the agenda were the intergovernmental conference and economic and monetary union.
The Council had a lengthy discussion on the prospects for the intergovernmental conference. Shortly beforehand, the Irish presidency had tabled a general outline for a draft revision of the treaty. That has been deposited in the House. It summarises fairly the position reached in the negotiations and the views of different member states. The views of the United Kingdom are fully reflected in it.
The Council conclusions reaffirm the target of completing the intergovernmental conference at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 and welcome the presidency document as a good basis for the work that lies ahead. That work was in no way prejudiced by the Council's conclusions in Dublin. We shall continue to advocate our own proposals and press our own concerns.
In discussion, I welcomed the progress made in a number of areas: subsidiarity, a greater role for national Parliaments, making the common foreign and security policy more effective, improving the quality of European legislation and introducing greater openness into the workings of the European Union.
I also spelled out the United Kingdom position on a number of key points. I see no purpose in a new employment chapter in the treaty. It will not create a single job. I do not accept that an enlarged European Union needs more qualified majority voting. On defence, we welcome co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union, but not merger or subordination of decision making. I will not agree to justice and home affairs issues falling under Community competence. It is unthinkable that the United Kingdom would relinquish its frontier controls. I also emphasised our requirement for progress on quota hopping in the common fisheries policy and on the working time directive.
The outcome of the intergovernmental conference will do much to determine the future direction of the European Union. Some advocate a more integrated, centralised Europe. I respect that view, but I do not share it. It would not be right for Britain. I believe that the European Union must be a partnership of nation states, with Community competence where it is needed, but only where it is needed. This is more than a free trade area, but very much less than an embryo European state.
There is only one way in which those competing visions can be reconciled, and that is through the development of a more flexible Europe. That is one of the most important issues before the conference. Those who wish to integrate further in particular areas should not be frustrated unreasonably although, if they wish to use

European Union institutions, they can proceed only through unanimity. Those who do not must not be forced into unwished-for obligations, which build up resentment.
I first set out the need for flexibility at Leiden some years ago, and it is now widely accepted. But we need to ensure that it is developed in a way that protects the vital interests of those who do not wish to integrate further in particular areas. There is much more work to be done here, and very little time in which to do it if the Amsterdam deadline is to be met.
Economic and monetary union was the subject of much interest, although the European Council did not itself discuss the issues at any great length. The Council agreed a report by Economic and Finance Ministers covering three issues on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has reported to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks: the stability pact, the legal status of the euro and the new—voluntary—exchange rate mechanism. The conclusions, to which the Economic and Finance Council report is annexed, make it clear that those issues remain subject to our parliamentary reserve.
If the single currency goes ahead, it is a vital British interest—whether or not Britain is a member—that it succeeds; so I welcome the progress on the stability pact. The agreement reached strikes the right balance between the necessary discipline and the need for the Council of Ministers to retain control of the disciplinary process if individual countries get into difficulty.
The House will welcome the clear statements in the ECOFIN report that the arrangements for economic surveillance to be agreed for countries not in the single currency cannot lead to sanctions of any kind. I have made no secret of my doubts about whether enough countries will be sufficiently convergent to allow a single currency to go ahead on the present timetable. I repeated those doubts in Dublin. It is important that the figures themselves are not fudged, but whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day is less important than the extent of genuine economic readiness for such a far-reaching step. I am therefore pleased that the ECOFIN report makes clear the importance of not only achieving economic convergence on a particular day, but being able to sustain it over the long term.
I should also report that the president of the European Monetary Institute presented to the Council, and subsequently publicly, designs for the proposed single currency's banknotes. Those designs are the responsibility of the central banks—as, indeed, such designs are the responsibility of the Bank of England in this country now. Everyone will have their own views on those.
The decision on whether to go ahead with a single currency will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. Although we expect to meet the required economic conditions, we have the right to decide whether or not we wish to join, if it goes ahead. We will make our decision when we are clear about all the necessary issues, including, crucially, our assessment of the prospect for real and sustained economic convergence.
The Council also discussed employment. Unemployment in this country is lower than in the other major European Union economies, and is falling faster. I circulated at the Council a paper on United Kingdom policies and their results, and commended it to our partners.
The Council adopted a declaration on unemployment. My agreement to it was subject to three conditions: that it confirmed that primary responsibility for employment policy rested with member states; that the European Union's approach remained based on the supply-side policies agreed at Essen in 1994; and that the declaration in no way prejudiced the question of an employment chapter in the treaty. Those conditions were agreed.
The European Council also discussed justice and home affairs, in which we welcome greater European co-operation, as long as it remains firmly on an intergovernmental basis. The Council confirmed the priority of the fight against drugs, and endorsed an Anglo-French initiative to combat transit and production of drugs in the central Asian republics. It called for ratification of the Europol convention by the end of 1997—achieved only by the United Kingdom so far—and agreed that Europol, the European Police Office, should work in conjunction with national agencies to support the fight against international crime. The Council also created a high-level group to draw up an action plan against organised crime, welcomed joint actions against sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings, and confirmed the need for intensified co-operation against terrorism.
I briefed my colleagues on the steps that we have taken to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy, notably progress under the 30-month slaughter scheme. I sought and received confirmation that future decisions on lifting the ban would be taken on the basis of science, as agreed at Florence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement a little later on the next steps.
On foreign policy, the Council endorsed the London conference document on Bosnia as an excellent basis for work next year. On the middle east, the declaration that was issued reflected our concern about the current state of the peace process. The Council also expressed its strong interest in a smooth transition to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region next year and its support for the existing representative democratic institutions of Hong Kong. That was a welcome endorsement of our approach.
The European Union is approaching some historic decisions over the next 18 months, both on a single currency and on its future direction. The result of the intergovernmental conference may well mark a crucial turning point in Europe's development. The President of the European Commission said last week that the moment of truth lies ahead. There is one sense at least in which he is right. The choices that are made will determine not only the success and stability of Europe as a whole, but Britain's relationship with it.

Mr. Tony Blair: First, I should like to state our unequivocal support for the measures that were agreed on co-operation to fight terrorism, organised crime, drugs and crimes against children. I also place on record our continuing support for the process of enlargement. On the IGC, we restate our agreement to justice and home affairs remaining outside Community competence, as in other essential areas such as taxation and defence. I agree with the Prime Minister on the issues of subsidiarity and the common foreign and security policy.
On the issue of flexibility—certain states moving ahead without others—does the Prime Minister agree that if that meant some states forming an inner core in the European

Union and moving ahead in certain areas without the consent of others, that would be potentially dangerous to Britain's interests?
I shall come straight to the two principal issues that arise—BSE and the single currency. We were told prior to Dublin that the Government were about to pull off a deal lifting the beef ban. Where is that deal?

Sir Jim Spicer: That is unreasonable.

Mr. Blair: That is supposed to be unreasonable, is it? Is it not now six months since the Florence summit, when we were told that a deal had been reached and that, as I recall, the ban would be lifted by November? After six months, is it not a fact that not a single piece of progress on lifting the ban has been made? Six months on, we are apparently back to the Florence agreement. Meanwhile, our farmers are suffering and it seems that the cost to the Exchequer is likely to rise to more than £3 billion.
Has not this whole affair been handled with serial incompetence? It is not unreasonable to ask: what is the timetable now? November has passed—what is the new date? In his statement, the Prime Minister said that decisions are now to be taken on the cull and elsewhere on scientific evidence. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said at lunchtime, "If one was to try to justify the cull in terms of the science, one would be in some difficulty." If Ministers of the same Government cannot get the same line right on the same day, is it any wonder that we are in the mess that we are on this issue?
On a single currency, the Prime Minister made much of the parliamentary reserve. Can he confirm, as the communiqué makes plain, that the vital decisions—some of them the most important that Europe has faced, as he rightly says—have been made? Will he confirm in terms of the stability pact that he and the Chancellor have agreed not only the deficit limits, but a system of penalties, rules for exceptional circumstances and a means of enforcement? Have they not also agreed that convergence programmes for those out of the single currency will be made obligatory? Plans will have to be submitted every year, with provisions for default. On exchange rate co-operation, have they not also agreed a system of assessment and monitoring, even for those outside any new exchange rate mechanism arrangement?
Therefore, on the parliamentary reserve, which is the Prime Minister's fallback position, may I put this to him? When will those issues be voted on in the House? When will we get the chance to explore those matters? Will he at least give us an undertaking that we shall have that vote before the general election? I think from that smile that the answer is no. I think that it is fair enough to say, however, that the only reason why we are not getting the chance is that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid to face the House of Commons' verdict on those issues. The whole point about the parliamentary reserve is that, if we were to change the position in any way, he could go back to our European partners and renegotiate. Is he seriously saying that, as a result of the reserve, he could credibly renegotiate decisions that had been taken?
How does the Prime Minister's position of keeping open the options on a single currency square with the extraordinary unilateral declaration of independence in today's The Daily Telegraph, from 147 Conservative


candidates, who said, effectively, that they would now stand on a different manifesto from the Government's at the next election? After all, it was the Prime Minister who said that it was self-evident that Tory divisions on Europe were damaging Britain's interests. I simply ask him, and again I think that this is not unreasonable: what could be more damaging than almost 150 candidates openly disagreeing with the Government's position and over half of them saying that they would never, ever join a single currency—and some of them want to come out of the European Union altogether? How does that make for credibility in negotiation? It is only fair to ask the Prime Minister to deal precisely with those 150 candidates, with their different manifesto.
Is not the real test in Europe success or failure, strength or weakness, and "Can we get a good deal for Britain?", and, as a result of those divisions, exemplified by 150 candidates effectively forming a party within a party, are we not in a weaker position than Britain has been in for 25 years?

The Prime Minister: Let me first welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about his support for the terrorism measures, for enlargement and for subsidiarity. I also welcome the other points of agreement at the outset of his remarks.
On flexibility, I have made the point on a number of occasions that, if some of our colleagues moot the prospect of flexibility, which means an inner core going ahead on its own, that would be utterly unacceptable, unless there were areas in which they went ahead by unanimity, so that every other member of the European Union agreed. However, in relation to any form of flexibility, if people propose to use the institutions of the European Union, those institutions belong to all EU members, not just some of them, and I have made the point to our partners that there can no prospect of an inner core going ahead on its own, other than by unanimity. The prospect of their going ahead on a wide front would fundamentally change the whole nature of the EU and is not the sort of flexibility that would be in the interests either of this country or of the EU as a whole.
On the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about BSE, the point that he frequently overlooks whenever he raises that matter in the House is the changed scientific evidence, which appeared after the Florence agreement was reached, about maternal transmission and other matters. That is what has changed the timetable for us. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a detailed statement about the way forward in a few moments.
On a single currency, the parliamentary reserve applies to all the matters in the stability pact, not of course to the matters agreed in the Maastricht criteria some time ago, some of which the right hon. Gentleman listed as if they had most recently appeared in the stability pact and had never been seen on a previous occasion. On the exchange rate mechanism, that remains entirely voluntary, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear on a number of occasions.
On convergence for countries outside the new euro zone, if it is created, the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—I assume that he is referring to the

routine surveillance reports that have been made by the House for some time—have no binding obligations at all and the circumstance does not change in any way.
On the manifestos of some of my colleagues, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we did not discuss those at all at the summit, but, of all hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman is on rather thin ice in raising the question of manifestos, because I recall what his 1983 manifesto said. He said that he would like to come out of Europe. He wanted to scrap Trident. He also wanted to end nuclear weapons. It is self-evident that, sometimes, what is put in a manifesto is not necessarily maintained by individual Members thereafter. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to make the points that he made.
On the question of a good deal for the United Kingdom, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he were to negotiate while still following the policies that he has advocated so far, the Amsterdam summit would be a Dutch auction of British sovereignty. He told his party conference that he would never allow himself to be isolated. He cannot negotiate if he is not isolated. He would surrender the veto in social policy, surrender the veto in industrial policy—

Mr. Donald Dewar: Ridiculous.

The Prime Minister: I tell the Opposition Chief Whip that it is ridiculous to surrender it, but that is the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is pressing upon his party. He would also surrender the veto on regional policy and on environmental policy. He would sign up to the social chapter and to the working time directive. He would back a new treaty on employment. Were he to go to Amsterdam, by the time he came back, there would be a great dent in British sovereignty.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the major contribution made by the United Kingdom to the successful Dublin summit. Is not it a statement of fact that our strong opt-out on joining a single currency and our policy of wait and see, which are strongly supported in this country as the only rational stance, do not in any way gainsay the need for further discussion on the merits of a single currency?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Maintaining our position is the right and sensible way to proceed, so that we can not only retain the flexibility for Britain to make a decision in Britain's interests, but have the maximum opportunity to influence others in decisions that will affect this country.

Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of the problems that we face in the European Union today—notably with the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy—were caused by our opting out of the original negotiations that framed the rules? If so, does he accept that the British national interest is again being damaged, because he is seen by other European Governments and by the British public as being held hostage by a Conservative party whose policy is increasingly not to be at the heart of Europe, but to be out of Europe?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that we are not opting out


of the negotiations in the matters that lie immediately ahead of us. We propose to play a full part in the intergovernmental conference and in the decision-making process leading up to a determination of whether a single currency proceeds.
There are two elements in the determination about a single currency—first, whether the circumstances are right for anyone to proceed; and secondly, whether the circumstances are right for any individual country, including the United Kingdom, to proceed. The determination of whether every country proceeds is actually made by a qualified majority vote in due course. If we think that other countries are not economically ready to enter a single currency—because their entry into a single currency and their weakening of a single currency, if it proceeded, would damage this country, whether in or not—we retain the option to vote against their entry. I certainly intend to play a full part in the negotiations.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend said that he was opposed to any country entering a single currency if it could not sustain its position economically, or if it somehow fudged its entry economically. Therefore, during the conference, did my right hon. Friend say anything about the countries that are clearly fudging their entry criteria—such as France, which has abused the process by stealing money from its telecoms fund? Did he warn France that if it continued to do that, Britain would raise it as a major issue again and again and again and declare itself against the process?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear that we would look carefully at the economic conditions to ensure that they were right, genuine and had not been fudged. I did not raise the specific matter of the French telecoms fund. When the time comes to make a judgment, we shall certainly take into account any actions that appear to us to be short-term fudges rather than a long-term improvement in the economic condition of countries going into a single currency. It was precisely to make it clear that that would be our position that I emphasised—not only today, but in the discussions over the weekend—that we would examine not only whether people met the criteria on the specific day that the initial decision was taken, but whether it was likely than they could maintain compliance with the criteria over the long term.

Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the question of a single currency—which is a political, not an economic question—goes far beyond the interests of this or cif any other country? Ministers have agreed in principle to transfer major political powers from Governments, whom the peoples of the European Union elect, to bankers, whom they do not. Given the situation in France, Germany, Italy and Spain—where, for many years, their peoples were denied, by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar, the right to use the ballot box to attempt to remedy their grievances—is it really sensible, in principle, to be in favour of giving up those powers? Is not one reminded of the words of Sir Edward Grey, in 1914:
The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"?

The Prime Minister: It seems to me that there may be some interesting manifestos from the Opposition, as well

as from some of my hon. Friends. The only sensible conclusion that one can draw from the right hon. Gentleman's comments—I appreciate the sincerity with which he advances his view, as he has done consistently for many years—is that we should remain in the negotiations to point out the dangers that we may see. I think that he would be forced to agree that that is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what he has said.

Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, were the Leader of the Opposition to allow a free vote on this issue, more than three quarters of the House would support my right hon. Friend's policy on Europe? That question comes from a sceptic on a single currency, who is not even angling for a job.

The Prime Minister: The accuracy of my hon. Friend's prediction marks him out as a future Chief Whip, if that is a job that interests him.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: My congratulations. The Prime Minister made it clear that the current state of the peace process in the middle east was discussed. Was the issue raised that that American Zionist, Netanyahu, is endangering the extremely fragile peace in that part of the world, and that something must be done internationally to restrain that gentleman in consistently breaking the Oslo accords, to which the Israeli Government are committed?

The Prime Minister: There was certainly a collective view that the agreements reached previously had to be met and kept, and that there was some need for urgent progress. No one pointed to the specific cause of the current disagreements; I think that there was a general feeling that there may be faults in many directions. However, the unanimous view was that there was a need for early progress.

Mr. Norman Lamont: What example in history is there of a single paper currency that is not tied to a single Government?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend points to the fact that we are entering uncharted waters, and I agree with him. That fact is precisely why I am so cautious. It is why my right hon. Friend and I negotiated the option for us to decide at a later date, and it is why he and I set out the convergence criteria. The fact that we are entering waters where no one has been before is precisely why it is right for us to be cautious and right for us to examine the economic circumstances. My right hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Terry Davis: Given that we can all see the detailed arrangements for a single currency, what is the Prime Minister waiting for? Is it not time for him to make up his mind one way or the other, instead of sitting on the fence?

The Prime Minister: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman knows all the circumstances. Does he know what the legal conditions are yet? The Governments do not. Does he know who will enter yet? The Governments do not. Does he know who will meet the


economic criteria? The Governments do not. I can extend that list. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has knowledge that the rest of us have not yet had.

Mr. David Howell: In seeking to protect our vital national interests in Dublin and to promote a non-federalist vision of Europe, can my right hon. Friend say what problems are being caused for him and our interests by the belief in some European quarters that after the general election there will be in London a more subservient, compliant, inexperienced and subordinate Government?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that there is a wish among some of our partners with socialist Governments to have a similar Government in the United Kingdom, who would be prepared to surrender the elements of British sovereignty that I set out earlier. I understand that wish, but they also understand the timetable; on that basis, I think that they are beginning to understand the need to negotiate with us now and, I believe, in Amsterdam.

Mr. Peter Shore: If the Prime Minister had any remaining, lingering doubts about the folly of joining a single currency, surely he had them resolved at Dublin. Of course, we already knew that, if we were to join a single currency, the stability pact would impose vast fines on us—fines amounting to more than 11 billion if it had been in effect for only the past four years. However, we did not know what was the crucial, as it were, exception—the temporary and exceptional circumstances in which there would be exemption from the penalties of the treaty. Now we know that it is the massively deflationary fall of 2 per cent. in gross domestic product, an experience that this country has not suffered in the post-war period. That wholly deflationary policy would be permitted under such a guideline. Does not the Prime Minister recognise that that is unacceptable and that it would be masochism and madness for us to join?

The Prime Minister: But of course, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he has to say about the vast fines that would have been inflicted on us in the past, as he will see if he reads more carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor discussed with his ECOFIN colleagues.
As for the general point, the policy relies not only on the 2 per cent. criterion, but on an overall case-by-case assessment. The only circumstances in which a fine would be levied—of course, it would be levied only on a country that was in the new euro zone—would be if the country was not only defaulting but making no effort whatever to correct the default. That is why it has been left to a decision of Ministers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I greatly welcome the determination shown by the Prime Minister at Dublin and, in particular, by the final sentence of today's statement, but will he outline the importance that he places on the elimination of quota hopping? Is it

something that the Government are merely hoping to achieve or something that they will demand be achieved if we are to have a new treaty?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the weekend, we think that it is essential to achieve the necessary change.

Mr. Giles Radice: The Prime Minister talked about vetoes, but is it not the case that the only veto that really counts with this Government is that exercised by the Europhobic malcontents on the Government Back Benches and their fellow travellers in the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should ask more sensible questions than that with his knowledge. If he had chosen to look around him, he might have directed his remarks about Europhobism in quite a different direction.

Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents to whom I spoke this weekend were delighted that he was negotiating hard in Dublin and that they are more worried than they have been for 25 years about our future relationship with Europe, but that the cruellest delusion would be to suppose that we could terminate our membership of the European Union at a stroke and that everything would then be all right?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is a delusion, and the people who peddle that delusion are certainly not considering what the British national interest would be or what the implications of leaving the European Union would be. Our position must surely be the one that I sought to set out a few moments ago: we are not prepared to move towards what I called an embryonic super-state across Europe, but we agree that our relationship with the European Union is more than a simple trading relationship, as indeed it has been since the day we signed the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did I hear the Prime Minister aright in his opening statement, saying that, in his opinion, it was a vital British interest, whether we were in or out, that the single currency should succeed? If he believes that, is there not a strong case for getting in and influencing it as soon as possible? Are we correct in believing that Michael Patijn, on behalf of the Dutch Government, has made various statements about what the 14 nations would do if, as they saw it, there was a lack of co-operation from a British Government? What would we do then?

The Prime Minister: The treaty cannot be agreed without 15. I have not heard the threats to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I have no idea whether they were made. They have been made by people in the past, and I regard them as dismissible.
If a single currency goes ahead and fails, the impact across the European Union will be dramatic, not just for those who are in the currency. That is the point that I was seeking to emphasise to the House. If it looks as if it will not succeed—because the convergence criteria will not be


met, or for some other reason—we shall urge everyone not to go ahead. If it went ahead and failed, I believe that the implications for this country would be profound—less profound, perhaps, than if we were in it, but certainly profound.

Mr. John Redwood: Given our worries about the attitude of some of our partners and the deal that they have offered us, what benefits did the Government secure for waiving our vetoes over the stability pact and the legalisation of the euro? Is the Prime Minister worried about Franco-German domination of the agenda, and does he not think that we need to offer an alternative?

The Prime Minister: On the stability pact, as I have just said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we think that if the euro zone goes ahead, it is essential that it succeeds. One of the mechanisms for making sure that sensible policies are carried out is the discipline of the stability pact, so we favour the stability pact. On that basis, it was unlikely that I would exercise a veto over it.
The veto is a necessary weapon that we have to use in areas of great national interest to the United Kingdom. When necessary, I will use the veto. I do not intend to abuse it and I do not intend to use the veto every time I have a disagreement with my European partners, but on matters of significant national interest, it must be clear to them that we will use it, because that would be the wish of the House and in the interests of this country.

Mr. John McAllion: The Prime Minister welcomed what he described as progress on subsidiarity. Will he explain to the House why, in his view, the principle of subsidiarity must be applied within the European Union, but must not be applied within the Union that is the United Kingdom? Surely it is wholly inconsistent to raise the banner of subsidiarity in one multinational union while simultaneously lowering it in another multinational union. Why cannot the Scots have their own elected parliament? Why cannot the Welsh have their own elected assembly? Why must subsidiarity always stop short in this unreformed place?

The Prime Minister: A great deal of responsibility and devolution has gone to Scotland, to Wales and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between 15 historic and sovereign nations and one United Kingdom, where a voluntary association has been entered into for so long, he should look more carefully.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that probably the most important thing that he said in his statement was that he intends to be obdurate about the so-called flexibility pact from France and Germany? He is right to cling to the safety catch of unanimity. Will he guarantee that he will continue that approach in Amsterdam and beyond?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. A flexible approach set out solely to provide a mechanism for a small core of countries to go ahead on their own,

perhaps against the interests of the rest of the European Union, would not be acceptable. Any flexibility of that sort would need to be agreed by unanimity.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that Scotland is a historic and sovereign nation. Did the Prime Minister see the remarks attributed to a member of the Irish presidential delegation that, given that the Prime Minister has kept the rest of us waiting for six months before honouring the commitments on the Florence agreement, it is difficult to take seriously any sense of urgency that he now expresses on BSE? How can the right hon. Gentleman cite maternal transmission as evidence for the delay, when the selective cull to be announced today does not include those animals? Who is responsible for the botch-up and the delay, and does the right hon. Gentleman accept any responsibility for the lost livelihoods throughout rural communities?

The Prime Minister: We have provided about £2.5 billion precisely to protect the beef industry across the United Kingdom after the health scares that arose following the scientific evidence about BSE. [HON. MEMBERS: "The cull?"] I shall come to that.
What no one anticipated at Florence or afterwards were two factors. First, there was the changed scientific evidence to which I referred a moment ago. Secondly, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else realised the sheer weight of animals that would need to come forward under the over-30-month scheme. More than 1 million animals have now been slaughtered—a figure that no one anticipated at the time. The fact that it has been possible to achieve that is the result of a remarkable feat of organisation by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. What we have done throughout the exercise is to put first and foremost the long-term interests of the beef industry. That we continue to do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Prime Minister has told the country that he is in Europe to get a good deal for the people of this country, does he not recognise that the lobbying by his Minister recently in Brussels for the destruction of Sunday as a special day and his success in getting written into the health directive that Sunday would no longer be a special day outrage many working-class people who have always observed Sunday as at least a family day? What does the Prime Minister think about the overwhelming vote in the Strasbourg Parliament, which said this week that Sunday should be returned to being a special day? What has he to say about that?

The Prime Minister: Many people believe that Sunday should be a special day. That is an article of faith for them and I do not wish to destroy that article of faith. It is a choice made by literally millions of people, as the hon. Gentleman said. I assume that his earlier remarks related to the concerns about the 48-hour working week. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to attribute to that the statement that the Government have not had the same respect for Sunday as he has.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I press the right hon. Gentleman about the rights


of this House? As he has agreed both the principles and the outline of a stability pact, when will he seek approval for his agreement in the House?

The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), we place a parliamentary reserve on the matter and the decision will be brought before the House in the usual way, following discussions between the usual channels.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend assure the country that no concession by our European partners on the working time directive, on beef exports, on quota hopping or on anything else will cause us to agree to surrender to European Union competence third-pillar matters of home affairs, justice and, in particular, border controls?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. and learned Friend a categorical assurance on that point.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If it is true that more than 140 Conservative candidates at the next general election will stand on a platform of no single currency at any price, does that mean that if there is a referendum, they will totally ignore the result, even if it says that the judgment of the British people is that we should enter the single currency?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is basing his remarks on the proposition that what has been reported is accurate. I do not know whether it is accurate and I have no idea how many of those 147 will be in the House. What I can say is that I will take responsibility for our manifesto commitment; I will set it out and keep it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who strongly supports my right hon. Friend's line on the single currency and believes that it is a wise one that merits united support on the Conservative Benches, may I ask him why he has not pressed on his European colleagues the great merits of the hard ecu—the common parallel currency—which he championed so sensibly some years ago?

The Prime Minister: I continue to believe that that would have been a sensible, market-driven way in which people could have decided whether they wished to move to a common currency. It had the additional advantage that a common currency could have circulated alongside domestic currencies, so that we could have had parallel currencies. Undoubtedly, that was a sensible way forward which, from time to time, I have pressed on my colleagues. I am afraid that they will not anticipate doing it unless or until they discover that a single currency either cannot proceed, or proceeds but does not work.

Mr. John Wilkinson: For the sake of eliminating any residual doubt and ambiguity, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, at the Amsterdam summit, the next Conservative Government

will veto the revised treaty if our concerns about quota hopping and the effect of the working time directive on employment are not met by treaty changes?

The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we expect to achieve those changes. We do not expect to agree a treaty unless we obtain the changes that we seek.

Mr. Tony Banks: We all know that the Prime Minister has double standards and that his whole attitude towards the European Union is predicated not on the national interest, but on the interests of the Conservative party, and is a way of protecting himself from the Euro-loonies behind him. We have become the laughing stock of Europe. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that he wanted to put the United Kingdom at the heart and the centre of Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, of course, is a new federalist, although that is not his old position. He has clearly changed his previous electoral convictions. My conviction that what we must put forward is in the national interest has been my position from the outset. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is not so, I am bound to tell him that my life would have been much easier had I not taken that position.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did the Prime Minister tell his colleagues in Dublin, on the question of surrendering large dollops of sovereignty, that a Tory Government took Britain into the Common Market in the first place, another Tory Government, whom he supported, voted for the Single European Act on a guillotine in the House and another Tory Government, led by him, signed the Maastricht treaty? Is not the truth of the matter that, in the run-up to the general election, the Prime Minister has sought to pacify some of his Back Benchers by waving the Union Jack in the hope of getting a few votes, when in reality he is no different from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sits beside him?

The Prime Minister: There was an intriguing endorsement in the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. No one would suggest that there is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Skinner: Yes.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman admits it. That is excellent. It will be another manifesto that we shall read with interest in our examination of manifestos.

Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: I am about to, but the hon. Gentleman will not like the answer. As he is so concerned about dollops of sovereignty, perhaps he should state in the parliamentary Labour party his views on the dollops of sovereignty that the Labour party is committed to surrendering. They relate to social policy, industrial policy and regional policy. Would the hon. Gentleman surrender sovereignty on those issues? He would not and neither would his hon. Friends. Perhaps we should have a show of hands. [Interruption.] Every time one of 50 Labour


Members stands up, the bogus view of Labour Front-Bench Members that there is unity in the Labour party is blown to pieces.

Mr. Ray Whitney: An article in The Daily Telegraph today—the most sensible item in that newspaper for several years—points out that between what are described as the extremes of visionary Euro-idealism and chauvinistic Euro-scepticism lies the path of realistic British Europeanism. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he and his Ministers continue to follow that path in their dealings with our European partners?

The Prime Minister: I do and I will.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister referred to the ratification of the Europol treaty under article K.3 of the Maastricht treaty. Will he confirm that that was done entirely by the royal prerogative, with no examination by the House? On 3 December, in relation to a statutory instrument, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), said that Europol would have no operational powers in the field and would have no operational arm. Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning's communiqué on the topic says that Europol should have operational powers, which will be discussed in conjunction with the national authorities? Does he agree that that illustrates that the great danger is not from a federal state, where there is no separation of powers, but from the development of a unitary state, which will effectively eliminate the powers of this House and of the national Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the last point. The conclusions make it clear that Europol is to work in conjunction with national authorities. Its role is to assist national law enforcement agencies, not to replace them. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that point.

Mr. Tim Renton: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the stance that he took in the difficult circumstances at the summit? Following Dublin, does he agree that, whatever the contents of a stability pact, without general and well-informed consent to joining economic and monetary union, a single currency may well prove fragile? On that basis, would he consider asking the Bank of England, which last week issued a booklet to businesses, to write an independent plain man's guide to the single currency and economic and monetary union, setting out the advantages and disadvantages for the ordinary family, and to send a copy to every household in the land?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend's analysis. In the wrong circumstances, a single currency would be fragile. I understand that the Bank of England is shortly to produce another guide. Whether it will be a plain man's guide, I cannot tell my right hon. Friend, as I have not yet seen it, but I shall bear in mind his wider point.

Mr. David Winnick: Was anything said at the Dublin summit about the mass demonstrations

in several member states in protest at the convergence criteria, which in many cases involve, as the Prime Minister knows, substantial cuts in public expenditure? Bearing in mind the implications for economic and political sovereignty that would arise from joining EMU on the basis of a single currency, is it not unthinkable that any such decision could be taken in the next Parliament without a referendum on the issue?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the last point. If a Conservative Government were to decide to go into a single European currency, there would have to be a referendum on that for all electors in the country. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. He is also right to point to the concerns that exist in some member states, but I must tell him that the matter was not specifically raised in our discussions.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I warmly commend my right hon. Friend's espousal of a market-driven common currency, rather than a politically driven single currency? Can he confirm that our partners will be demanding a decision from us on a single currency by the end of the coming year? Was there any discussion, informally or formally, about Italy and Belgium's debt being 120 per cent. of GDP? In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider in the early summer ruling out the prospect of our joining a single currency, on the basis that the economic convergence criteria are not so much being fiddled or fudged, but trampled on in the Gadarene rush towards a disastrous single currency that Europe cannot sustain?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about what would happen if the criteria are wrong, whether it happens to be the debt criteria or any of the other convergence criteria, for that matter. I do not foresee any real likelihood that most member states will not reach the inflation criteria—I think it overwhelmingly likely that they will—but whether they will meet the 3 per cent. deficit criteria or the debt criteria is a different matter. I think that over the next few months we shall see a number of projections from individual member states about the likely deficits that they foresee for next year, which will add to our knowledge. There should also be some international examinations of international currencies, which will add a great deal to the assessment of whether the criteria will be met. I expect that, in some cases, the position will become clearer in the months ahead.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As the greatest danger to the sustainability of the 3 per cent. borrowing requirement for the single currency is the 18 million people who are unemployed in Europe—2 million of whom are in this country, which is in fact more than when the Prime Minister took office—is it not ludicrous to oppose the idea of co-ordinating employment policies in Europe by adhering to an employment chapter in the Maastricht treaty, which would enable this country to work with our partners at the heart of Europe?

The Prime Minister: The EU agreed in 1994 at Essen a way in which it was felt at the time we could all best tackle unemployment. That was largely by supply-side measures, of the sort with which the House has become


familiar over recent years, which are generally putting people back to work. Those decisions are taken in nation states and self-evidently could not be taken at the centre. We find ourselves opposed to the prospect of Community communal decisions—almost certainly expenditure decisions—leading to larger contributions from each nation state, with the intention of creating short-term jobs. That is not the way in which to create jobs and remain competitive for the future. Although we are perfectly happy to co-ordinate, we are not prepared to have decisions taken in Brussels which will impact on the domestic decisions that we are taking to bring down unemployment.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on opinion in my constituency? I judge that there is a majority who want to stay in a Common Market and a majority who are against a single currency. I sense that every step taken closer to a single currency enlarges the minority of my constituents who want to pull out altogether, which I believe would be a disaster. Does he therefore accept that the best way in which to ensure that we stay in a Common Market is to review our policy on a single currency now?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's feeling and entirely agree with him that a very large majority of people in this country believe that we should stay in the EU, but share some of the unease that I, he and others have expressed about the direction and drift of some elements of European policy. I do not, however, believe that the right thing to do would be to determine that we should effectively disengage from the most important decision that Europe will take. Our input into that decision may have a material impact on whether the whole prospect goes ahead or does not if the criteria are wrong. If it went ahead in the wrong circumstances, the damage to our membership of the EU and to the EU itself might well be fatal. I share my hon. Friend's view; we are best in the EU, but not in what I called an embryo super-state. I believe that we should keep open that middle road in the interests of the UK.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We must now move to the second statement.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, I should like to make a statement on our follow-up to the Florence agreement on BSE and the additional steps that the Government intend to take towards the eventual lifting of the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom.
The agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated at Florence defined five general preconditions for the lifting of the ban. Since that agreement was made, we have succeeded in fulfilling four of them, which are as follows.
The first precondition was an improved system of animal identification and movement recording. Cattle passports are now issued to all cattle born since 1 July, recording details of each animal's identity and movement. We have so far issued 751,000 such passports. As I announced on 10 December, we are also pressing ahead with proposals for a computerised cattle-tracing system in Great Britain. The second was the removal of meat and bonemeal from farms and feed mills. Action was taken during the summer to retrieve the last remaining stocks of meat and bonemeal from the animal feed chain. A total ban on possessing MBM where animal feed is handled came into force on 1 August.
The third general precondition was the removal of specified bovine material in slaughterhouses. The rules on removal of those parts of the carcase that can harbour the infective agent are being enforced with great rigour. More than 450 additional inspectors have been taken on. Statistics show that the rules are now being fully complied with. The fourth was the slaughter and destruction of cattle aged over 30 months. Since 1 May, more than 1 million cattle aged over 30 months have been killed and removed from the human food chain.
As the House will know, the last precondition, as yet not implemented, is the selective cull of animals judged to be most at risk of BSE. On 19 September, the Government postponed the cull while we considered the implications of the latest scientific evidence not known at the time of the Florence agreement and the range of cull options put to us. We also wanted further to explore the possibility of securing a lifting of the export ban in respect of meat from animals from certified herds and we judged it necessary to clear the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter under the over-30-months scheme before proceeding to any selective cull.
I am glad to say that we have now cleared the backlog in Great Britain and will very shortly do so in Northern Ireland. That has been a considerable achievement. Slaughtering and disposing of well over 1 million animals in seven months has been an enormous logistical exercise, and I pay tribute to the crucial role played by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, by all my noble and hon. Friends in the Agriculture Departments and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The over-30-months scheme backlog is no longer an impediment to the selective cull.
We have concluded that the scientific evidence is unlikely to change decisively the basis of the selective cull as agreed in Florence. Moreover, opinion within the industry has changed: for example, the National Farmers


Union, formerly hostile to the selective cull, is now, together with the other farming unions, strongly in favour of carrying out the cull agreed at Florence. Against that background, we have decided that now is the time to bring forward our proposals for a selective cull in accordance with the terms of the Florence agreement, and I shall be so informing the Agriculture Council tomorrow.
Furthermore, we are now ready with proposals for a United Kingdom certified herd scheme, which we will table as a basis for negotiating the first step in relaxing the ban. We have issued our proposals today for consultation and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I shall submit the paper formally to the Commission early in the new year and press for discussions in the Standing Veterinary Committee to begin as soon as possible. Again, I shall inform the Agriculture Council tomorrow.
We cannot be certain how many animals will be affected by the cull, not least because many beasts from the cohorts in question will have gone out already under the over-30-months scheme. However, it is certain that implementing the cull will be a complex business. We need to act expeditiously. My intention is that the necessary orders should be signed before the recess, together with the appropriate statutory rules for Northern Ireland. Should the House so desire—that is to say, should the relevant order be prayed against—there will be a debate before any compulsory slaughter of exposed animals is carried out in Great Britain.
The Exchequer cost of the programme will self-evidently depend on the number of animals to be slaughtered. Our original estimate of 128,000 is clearly out of date. Many of those animals will already have been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme, although we cannot at the moment be certain of the exact number. If, for example, we were required to deal with about 100,000 animals, the gross cost would be about £150 million and the net cost about £90 million. The difference is accounted for by contributions from European Union funds and by corresponding savings under the over-30-months scheme.
The House will know that we have been researching whether there is any maternal transmission of BSE. As yet, we have not received conclusive advice on the point. I hope that by March next year I shall be in a better position to advise the House. In the mean time, the Government have concluded that uncertainty on that point is not a reason for delaying the start of the cull, but we are ready to modify the cull if the advice that we receive provides a proper justification for so doing.
Our aim is to complete the cull within about six months of when we start, although the tracing of animals that have moved out of affected cohorts might take a little longer. The Agriculture Departments will send to all cattle farmers a document setting out how we intend to proceed. On compensation, the arrangements will be as I set out to the House on 24 July. For male animals, that means market value; for female animals, either 90 per cent. of replacement value or the animal's market value, whichever is the higher. There will be a top-up for those who lose more than 10 per cent. of their herds and an enhancement for closed herds.
Inevitably, some parts of the United Kingdom will make more rapid progress than others, but I wish to stress that both the cull and our proposals for lifting the ban in

respect of certified herds will be UK-wide in their application. We regard this as but the first step towards the complete lifting of the ban on the export of cattle, beef and beef products from the United Kingdom.
Finally, the House should not be under any illusion as to how quickly a selective cull will lead to a resumption of exports of British beef. We will now pursue discussions in Brussels as rapidly as possible. That process may take longer than we would wish. Member states will insist on a thorough examination of the proposals. Indeed, the Florence agreement itself provided that the ban is likely to be lifted on a step-by-step basis over a period of time.
However, of one thing I am absolutely certain. Unless we commit ourselves to the selective cull, the entire ban will remain in place for the foreseeable future. A selective cull is an indispensable precondition to obtaining any lifting of the ban. Implementing it will enable us to press vigorously for a lifting of the ban, starting with certified herds. For that policy we have the support of the farming unions and I hope that I will also have the support of the House.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Well, well, Madam Speaker. May I remind the Minister and the House that after the Florence summit the Prime Minister presented the agreement as a great triumph and told us that by November we would have met all the conditions to enable beef and beef products that can be sold in this country to be sold throughout Europe and the world? He told us that the ban would be lifted completely. May I also remind the Minister that he described the Florence agreement as a great success, which provided a solid way forward? Does the Minister accept that the fact that, one month after the Prime Minister's deadline, the beef ban is 100 per cent. still in place is a terrible indictment of the Government's record?
What damage does the Minister think the episode has inflicted on our standing in the European Union? What assessment has he made of the damage it has done to our industry, including the thousands of jobs lost and the damage to farmers' livelihoods? Does the Minister accept that all those matters have been aggravated by six months of vacillation? May I also remind the Minister that throughout those months the Labour party urged him to meet the conditions of the Florence agreement in full as it was the only current mechanism on the table to enable the ban on the export of British beef and beef products to be lifted?
Does the Minister realise that he has completely failed to justify why the Government have taken six months to reach this point and that his excuses are extremely unconvincing? May I remind him that the work of Professor Roy Anderson and his colleagues, and the evidence on maternal transmission, mean that, if anything, we could have a more targeted selective slaughter programme, which would enable us to concentrate more effectively on the cows more likely to go down with BSE? That evidence certainly did not justify the Government's decision to shelve the Florence agreement.
May I remind the Minister of the recommendations made in 1989 by the Tyrrell committee for random testing of the brains of cattle that go through our slaughterhouses? That scientific recommendation was never implemented by the Government. Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for examining the brains


of cattle slaughtered under the selective programme to see if we can judge what proportion of animals has been infected by the BSE agent at detectable levels?
The Minister has used as one of his excuses the fact that we did not have the slaughterhouse capacity to implement the selective slaughter programme, and other hon. Members may have observations on that. Has he used these six months to identify the animals that are to be slaughtered under the programme? Is it correct to conclude from the Minister's statement—certainly it was the impression given—that the Government have not identified the cattle targeted under the slaughter programme? Does that not mean an unnecessary and additional delay in implementation?
Does the Minister recall that his other reason for the delay was that the EU would not lift the ban, even if we met our side of the Florence agreement? Apparently, the best that the Prime Minister could get at Dublin when he raised this matter was that decisions would be taken on the basis of science. Hon. Members who heard the Minister say at lunchtime that he would be hard put to make a scientific case for the selective slaughter programme may not regard that as a convincing statement. Surely the Minister can tell us that if we implement our side of the Florence agreement, we can look forward to a rapid lifting of the ban of exports of British beef and beef products. When will he give us a timetable? We are entitled to that this afternoon. Does the Minister appreciate that, yet again, his total mishandling of the BSE crisis has meant that enormous, additional and unnecessary damage has been inflicted on our economy? As far as the farmers, the beef industry and the consumers are concerned, enough is enough.

Mr. Hogg: I think that it is the sense of the House that it would have been more gracious if the hon. Gentleman had welcomed the statement. I am bound to say that his criticisms would have been more plausible had he not in the early stage of the crisis justified the imposition of the ban by the European member states.
On the substantive points of the hon. Gentleman's question—rather than the bluster—I agree that the imposition of the ban has caused considerable damage to British agriculture, beef producers and related industries, and it is in recognition of that fact that the Government have committed more than £3 billion in assistance. I do not for one moment suppose that the Labour party would have done that.
As regards the publication of Professor Anderson's report in Nature, it was right that we should pause on the range of options there described to see, for example, if member states could be persuaded that one of the other options described was more appropriate, cost-effective and efficient than that described in the Florence agreement. We have been unable to persuade them of that.
On the question of the relationship between the selective cull and the over-30-months scheme, we have always made it plain that it would be highly desirable to complete, or substantially complete, the over-30-months scheme before we move on to the accelerated cull. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain, we have now slaughtered more than 1 million beasts under the over-30-months scheme, a logistical exercise of enormous complexity.
On the question whether we have started to trace cattle on farms, the answer is that we have not—for this good reason. Had we identified the animals in question, those animals would have been treated as having no economic value. Clearly, it would have been wrong to do that until such time as we had decided to embark upon the selective cull, as I have described to the House. On the question of justification, the truth is that BSE will die out in the national herd in 2001. The cull itself will reinforce neither public nor animal safety, and its real justification is that, unless we do it, we will not get progress on lifting the ban. That is a political fact, not a scientific one.
As to the timetable, I will say what I have said on many occasions in the past. We will not secure a timetable, and I never pretended that we would. The Florence agreement provides a framework for a step-by-step process that will incrementally lead to a lifting of the ban.

Sir Hector Monro: The large sum of compensation—more than £3 billion to the farming and meat processing industries—has been warmly received and has gone a long way towards helping those who have been hurt financially. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me on one particular point in relation to the Florence agreement, which was a United Kingdom agreement? Will any move towards the certified herd scheme—which I hope will be implemented as quickly as possible—be on a United Kingdom basis, and not country by country?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and very few people know more about this subject than him. The application and criteria for certified herds will be expressed in United Kingdom-wide terms.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister now prepared to state unequivocally that he can reiterate the Prime Minister's promise—that control over the timetable is now in the hands of the Government? In the light of what he has said this afternoon, is he prepared to look again at the time scale for the completion of the accelerated cull? He tells us that it will take six months. As 1 million cattle have been destroyed in a six-month period, surely the basic arithmetic suggests that the process could be completed more speedily. Finally, paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that the way in which the slaughter will be allocated to abattoirs will be similar to that under the 30-months scheme. Is he aware of the real concerns about the way in which a small number of abattoirs have profiteered and made a killing from the scheme? The new scheme must be put out to competitive tender.

Mr. Hogg: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman either has not read or has misunderstood the Florence agreement, which never provided for a timetable. It provided for a process—[interruption.] I am referring the hon. Member for North Cornwall—who is fluffing about—to the Florence agreement, which I suggest he reads. What he will see if he reads it, and is capable of understanding it, is a process whereby the British Government will put documents to the Commission, who will then place those documents before the Standing Veterinary Committee and other expert committees where


the issue will be discussed. The response that we receive is in the hands of the European Commission and the member states.
We will negotiate vigorously along the lines that I have set out—namely, that the application in respect of certified herds is but a first step and will be expressed in UK-wide terms. The scheme will take some time in parts of Great Britain, simply because the numbers are substantial and the tracing process complicated. It is different in Northern Ireland—where tracing can be done rapidly—and, for that matter, in Scotland. In England, it will be a lengthy process and six months is not an unrealistic assessment.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the process of negotiations—as he describes it—is, in effect, no better than a process of appeasement? In fact, the events of the past six months have played further into the hands of those member states who have said that they will not lift the ban. What indication does he have that the ban will be lifted? Does he regard these talks as negotiations?

Mr. Hogg: What we are doing is proceeding with a process that was agreed in Florence. I do not want the House to be under any misunderstanding. I certainly accept that it will be difficult and slow to achieve a complete lifting of the ban, but I think that we have a reasonable chance of securing a partial lifting of the ban, for example, in respect of the certified herds. We shall then press on, for example, in respect of cattle born after a certain date. However, unless we commit ourselves to implementing the selective cull, we can be certain that there will be no progress of any kind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: At the bottom of page 2 of his opening statement, the Minister referred to the latest scientific evidence not known at the time of the Florence agreement. What part of the scientific evidence was so crucial as to have altered policy?

Mr. Hogg: The most interesting, but by no means the only, piece of scientific evidence that came to the fore after the Florence agreement was the possibility of maternal transmission.

Mr. James Couchman: The House will be glad to have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend that we are now to go ahead with the selective cull, which should enable us to meet the Florence conditions. Can he be more specific about the timetable? He has said that the process will be difficult and slow, but what does that mean? How difficult and how slow? During his discussions in Dublin, was he given any indication by his fellow Agriculture Ministers that some other scientific reasons may be dreamed up in order to frustrate our return to exporting beef?

Mr. Hogg: I shall be talking to Agriculture Ministers tomorrow and after that I may be in a slightly better position to respond to my hon. Friend's questions than I am now.
It is important that we do not set out a false prospectus. What we have achieved at Florence is a process that is capable, given good will, of leading step by step to a lifting of the ban. It will take time, however, and there are

a variety of reasons why member states will be reluctant to agree—most notably the internal pressure that they face from their farmers, consumers and those who are involved in the collapse in their markets for beef consumption. It is therefore unwise to talk in terms of timetables, but I can say that we will put our formal proposals—the working document—on the certified herds to the Commission at about the end of January next year. The Commission will then—I hope shortly thereafter—put the proposals to the Standing Veterinary Committee and the other veterinary committees. We need some delay before going to the Commission because there is a consultation process in respect of the certified herds which concludes on 17 January. It is desirable that we should complete that process before putting our firm proposals to the Commission.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge the very real difficulties of beef farmers in north-east Wales? Can he guarantee my constituents easy access to abattoirs as they try to cope with the problem? Finally, will he consider an invitation from me to visit Pwll farm in Treuddyn, where Mr. Idris Roberts, who is the leader of Flintshire National Farmers Union, could give him a reasonable and helpful tutorial on these matters?

Mr. Hogg: That is a kind offer—the only problem is that I have no departmental responsibility for agriculture in Wales and, therefore, I might trespass on the ground of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
There are two different points relating to abattoirs and the availability of spaces within them. In respect of slaughtering under the accelerated cull, I do not anticipate any difficulty with finding ready slots for slaughtering cattle under that scheme. In respect of the over-30-months scheme, there were delays and I shall not try to pretend otherwise. I am glad to say that the backlog has now been cleared and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents should be having any current difficulty with finding slots for the slaughter of their beasts. If I am wrong on that point, the hon. Gentleman should talk to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and we shall see what we can do to help.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks of the farming community, both in my constituency and in the west country as a whole, for the way in which the herculean task of dealing with more than 1 million cattle so far has been tackled and especially for achieving a figure of more than 60,000 in the past few weeks? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) does not understand the position that we were in a few months ago? If he had been a west country farmer, facing the prospect of 102 cattle still caught in the backlog of the 30-months cull, the last thing he would have wanted would have been a Minister coming forward with a scheme like this. We had to get the backlog cleared before moving on.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) misses the point when he asks why we cannot act quickly? All my constituents want some flexibility, because they are


coming up to the end of the quota year. In the interests of the farming community, we must have flexibility in the way in which we deal with this problem.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind observations. I am well aware, from a spirited meeting that I attended in the west country, of the concern felt by farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere about the backlog. I am glad that we have been able to clear the backlog. My hon. Friend is right to say that by clearing the backlog we have brought about a change in sentiment within the farming industry. Previously, it was hostile to the cull. I believe that farmers, generally speaking, now want us to carry out the cull.
On the question of flexibility, my hon. Friend is again right to say that that is important. In those cases where we are contemplating culling a substantial number of cattle from a single herd, we shall try to do it in at least two tranches.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye, so briefer questions and brief answers would be welcome and helpful.

Mr. William Ross: Is the computerised tracing scheme that the Minister is setting up in Great Britain comparable with the one that already exists in Northern Ireland? Will he explain how his statement today will impact on the beef industry in Northern Ireland where, I believe, most herds will qualify almost immediately for the certified herd scheme? Will he also explain the implications for the flagged holdings in Northern Ireland, specifically suckler herds? Will he give an undertaking that arrangements for the cull will be better than those for the 30-months scheme?

Mr. Hogg: I imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will want me to concentrate on what I judge to be the core of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is the significance of the statement to Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity very soon to study the discussion document or consultation paper on certified herds and he will see two matters of particular relevance to Northern Ireland. First, the criteria to determine which animals are capable of being classified as certified herds will be met by many herds and cattle in Northern Ireland. Secondly, when it comes to proving eligibility—that will be an absolutely essential part of the scheme—Northern Ireland is extremely well placed, by reason of its computer-based system, to achieve that. I cannot think of any part of the United Kingdom that is better placed to meet the criteria than is Northern Ireland and I can think of no part of the United Kingdom that is likely to make more rapid progress in satisfying the criteria than is Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has just been talking about Northern Ireland. I understand that the selective cull there could go through very quickly. If so, we would then

discover our European partners' bona fides in respect of lifting the ban. Is it not a question of hastening the process in Northern Ireland and then thinking again about whether we should pursue the cull more widely?

Mr. Hogg: I would not commend that course of action to my hon. Friend, for the following reason. He will remember that, at the end of my statement, I said that, in my view, a commitment to the selective cull is an essential, indispensable precondition to making any progress. I do not think that we would secure any progress if the cull to which we committed ourselves was partial or regional. Consequently, the cull that we are proposing is UK-wide and will be carried out UK-wide. The application regarding certified herds is couched in UK-wide terms, but the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend will have heard what I just said about Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not it clear that such a scheme, especially for England, would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to impose? There is no base line, and there are certainly no existing arrangements that would meet the conditions that are found specifically in Northern Ireland, and also in Scotland, at present.
Does the Minister accept that he has demonstrated this afternoon that European countries with large agricultural industries have no intention of helping us while they are supplying our markets and have no intention of listening to anything from the scatter-gun approach that he suggests today?

Mr. Hogg: What the hon. Lady is saying is something like this: that the certified herd scheme will not be applicable to very many herds in England, and she has a point. There are at least three areas, however, on which she may not have fully focused. The first is the beef assurance scheme. Cattle which fall within the beef assurance scheme will, by definition, qualify under the certified herd scheme, provided that at the material date they are not more than 30 months of age. Secondly, we have had cattle passports as from 1 July—about 713,000 have been issued thus far—and that is a good basis for matching cattle with our confirmed case computer base. Moreover, in respect of some herds in which cattle have never moved from the natal herd, we shall be able to satisfy the eligibility criteria, but it will be easier in Northern Ireland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be considerable disappointment that we are going ahead with the selective cull without obtaining firm and copper-bottomed guarantees as to when the export ban will be lifted? Many of us do not trust our European friends and we believe that they will keep the ban going for year after year. What happens if we complete the cull and they still refuse to lift the ban? May I suggest that the only way in which we shall get any success is to tell them that, if they do not lift our ban after we have spent £3.2 billion, we shall ban their beef from being imported into this country?

Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's position, but it has always been so. The Florence agreement did not


provide for a timetable. Perhaps I may put the argument the other way round: if we do not commit ourselves to a selective cull, there will certainly be no progress.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister talked about the cattle passport scheme, and I believe he mentioned the figure of 713,000 passports. Does that scheme meet in every respect the provisions in the Florence arrangement, which talks about an animal identification scheme? Does it meet the provisions throughout the United Kingdom or is it more likely to meet them in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct one error that I made. I said 713,000; I should have said 751,000, and I apologise.
The cattle passport scheme does meet the requirements of Florence. We shall improve it. As the hon. Gentleman may know, on 10 December I published a consultation document on a computer-based traceability system, which will be an enhancement on the paper-based system and will be run in a way that is compatible with proposals made by the European Commission. On the narrow question that the hon. Gentleman asked, namely, is our identification now up to scratch, the answer is yes, and it is better than is to be found in most European states.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Am I right in thinking that, in last month's Opposition day debate on BSE, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave a strong commitment to supporting the cull? Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a renewal of that commitment?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, which is one of the reasons why I said that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was less than gracious in his response to my statement. The hon. Gentleman will remember the intervention that I made in his winding-up speech, when he gave a categorical commitment to support the selective cull.

Dr. Strang: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I see he is nodding. That is good of him, but I am bound to say that we have got it down and will keep it in evidence against him.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister has made it clear that he does not have European agreement to the further slaughter. How confident is he that his fellow Ministers in the European Community will agree with the methodology involved in targeting those specific animals? Are not we now in the worst of all worlds—where we have no European agreement and the Minister does not truly believe in the programme? When the Minister is reduced to doing something that he does not believe in, is not it time that he went and made way for someone who knows what he is doing?

Mr. Hogg: We do have agreement as to the concept that underpinned the figure of 128,000. Those concepts, which were set out in the eradication programme that we submitted, were approved at the time of the Florence agreement. So we have agreement on the point of the three cohorts plus the voluntary cohort. We shall have to form a view on whether there will be an attempt to add

to those numbers on account of "maternal transmission" when we have better evidence from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in spring 1997.
The hon. Gentleman says that I do not agree with the programme. That is not true. I well understand why several hon. Members wish that we could have a timetable. I accept that it is difficult to justify a cull in scientific terms—it will not improve public health—but one must stand back and ask oneself a different question: whether, if we do not have a cull, we shall make progress. In the absence of a selective cull, we shall make no progress, and on that basis I defend it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister made it clear that at first there was opposition to the Florence cull. Can he confirm that no opposition came from the Ulster Farmers Union, which backed an immediate culling? He also told the House that Northern Ireland would be in a very favourable position. If that is so, is he prepared immediately to propose to Agriculture Ministers that Northern Ireland should be made a special case? Will he take from the Prime Minister a letter delivered to him by myself and the leader of the SDLP, which made it clear that the German Minister of Agriculture was now of a mind to change his view and support Northern Ireland as a special case?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the farmers of Ulster have always supported a cull, for reasons such as those that underpinned the question asked by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). We shall, as expeditiously as we can, go to the European Commission and, through it, the Standing Veterinary Committee and the other experts, with our full working document, which will set out our concept of a certified herd scheme, which will be UK-wide in its application. I do believe, however, for the reasons that I mentioned to the hon. Member for East Londonderry, that Northern Ireland is very well placed to satisfy the eligibility criteria and—even more to the point—to have that satisfaction of the criteria established positively, so that the European Union can be satisfied that it is valid.

Mr. Tony Banks: First, if we can have a cattle passport scheme, when can we have a passport scheme for pets? Secondly, what is the total cost of the BSE eradication scheme to date, including compensation, transport, slaughter, rendering and incineration?

Mr. Hogg: On the first question, the hon. Gentleman must wait on events. On the second question, the overall cost committed—not money spent, but committed over the relevant periods set out in the documents—is slightly more than £3 billion.

Mr. Edward Garnier: May I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer), and the broad thrust of his question? What my farmers require is a greater degree of certainty. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me when the selective cull will come into effect? I do not want to know the end date; I want to know when it will begin. Can my right hon. and learned Friend also tell me the operative date for deciding the market value of any particular beast?

Mr. Hogg: We intend valuation to be taken as at the day of valuation, which will give a degree of certainty.


As my hon. and learned Friend will see in the consultation document, however, we have contemplated the possibility of some other date, and if people want to argue in favour of some other date we shall manifestly take their representations into account.
When the culling will start rather depends on whether the House wants to debate the compensation order. I anticipate that it may want to do so, but I do not suppose that that will happen until the latter part of January. We cannot slaughter until we have debated the order, if that is the will of the House, and get approval if we do so; but we might be in a position to start the slaughter in February or early March.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcomed the rather belated statement about the selective cull, but has the Minister learnt any lessons from the over-30-months scheme, which involved huge backlogs in parts of north Wales? The Minister might have to look again at the overall structure of the scheme that he is introducing. I was very disturbed by his earlier comment that some parts of the United Kingdom would make more rapid progress than others: that does not sound to me like uniformity.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points. The reference to rapid progress was actually a reference to the fact that Northern Ireland is particularly well placed to satisfy the criteria, and also to prove that the criteria have been satisfied. As for the accelerated cull programme, I do not anticipate any difficulty in ensuring rapid slaughter. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we raised the slaughter capacity in regard to the over-30-months scheme to 60,000 a week. It has now plummeted, and there is now a good deal of capacity to enable us to carry out that slaughter.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend has been candid enough to say on a number of occasions that there is no scientific justification for the extended cull, but that it is necessary to get the ban lifted. Will he elaborate for a moment or two on the logic of saying that it is better to carry out the cull and then hope that our so-called partners will take mercy on us than simply to say, "If we do this, will you lift your ban?"? Would our partners not be more likely to take notice of our position if we said, "We will co-operate in this way if you give us an assurance that you will lift the ban; alternatively, we will consider measures of our own, such as insisting that imports of foreign beef are subjected to the same stringent health conditions as our own beef"? Would not a package of that sort be more likely to achieve the result towards which my right hon. and learned Friend has been working for so long?

Mr. Hogg: I recognise that my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of negotiation. I have been engaged in this particular business for six or seven months, and I owe it to the House to give the best opinion that I can give on how we are likely to make progress most effectively.
I have taken into account, and explored, possibilities such as those outlined by my hon. Friend, and have finally reached the clear conclusion that, unless we give this commitment to the selective cull, we shall not make any

progress of any kind. That is the advice that I give the House, but it is, of course, for the House to make its own judgment.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Minister already knows that we have a certified 97 per cent. herd traceability in Northern Ireland. He also knows that the over-30-months cull was completed this week, and that the accelerated cull could be completed in a matter of weeks. That means that Northern Ireland has fulfilled all the Florence requirements, or will certainly have done so by the middle of January.
May I ask the Minister to clarify his earlier answers? Does that mean that, because it has qualified under all those headings, the ban will be lifted from Northern Irish beef? If not, why not? Is the Minister aware that Commissioner Fischler and the chairman of the Committee of Agriculture Ministers are simply waiting for the British Government to make that request to them, and will he make that request?

Mr. Hogg: I should be a little cautious about interpreting exactly what the position is, but let me make the situation plain once more. The application in respect of certified herds will be UK-wide, and I hope that we shall be in a position to put the relevant papers to the Commission at the end of January or the beginning of February. The hon. Gentleman will recall that he himself said that the position in Ulster would not have met all the criteria until the middle of January. We will then engage in discussions with the European Commission and within the Standing Veterinary Committee, but I believe that Northern Ireland will find it relatively easy to meet the criteria, and that it is uniquely well placed to prove that they have been met.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that his announcement will be greeted warmly by farmers in Northumberland, who will see it as the start of a long process rather than an end in itself. Today is not the occasion on which to threaten our European partners with what might happen in the future.
May I ask a technical question? If there is a disagreement about value, will an appeal mechanism be available to farmers?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of these matters.
There are three possible valuation methods. First, the farmer agrees to the appointment of a valuer by the Ministry, and he will fix the valuation. Secondly, a valuer will be appointed by the farmer and the Ministry, allowing the possibility of an agreed valuation. Failing that, the chairman of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors can appoint a valuer, and that valuation is agreed to be final. To that extent there is an appeal mechanism, but it is by way of reference to an independent valuer appointed by the chairman of the RICS.

Mr. Clive Soley: We still need a clear answer from the Minister about the British Government's position in relation to Northern Ireland. He will know that about 1,700 cattle must be slaughtered there to meet the Florence criteria. If, after that has been achieved, the European Commission acknowledges—whether to the


Select Committee, which is now taking an interest in the matter, or to any other reputable organisation, which I hope includes the British Government—that Northern Ireland has met the criteria, will the British Government then ask for the ban on Northern Ireland's beef to be lifted? That is what we need to know.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the process. Let me begin by establishing a small point of fact. The number of cattle to be slaughtered under the accelerated cull scheme in Northern Ireland is now substantially less than 1,700; a good many have gone under the over-30-months scheme.
We will come forward with an application to the Commission, and through the Commission to the Standing Veterinary Committee, and thereafter to other expert committees. It is possible that the application will go back to the Council, but I hope that it will not. That will be in respect of certified herds UK-wide. We must then see what the response is. I hope that we shall be able to secure a lifting of the ban that is not confined to Northern Ireland—that we shall be able to satisfy the Commission that there are herds in Scotland, for example, that may meet the criteria as the Commission would want, and also, perhaps, in England and Wales. It will be a hard negotiation, but I will not stand artificially in the way of progress. I want to see progress.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that some of the farmers who have been especially hard hit by the cull will receive extra-generous compensation for the disruption that they will obviously suffer?

Mr. Hogg: We have already made available to producers a narrow line of aid of the order of £263 million or £264 million. Some £50 million from the October Council is still undetermined and I anticipate a high degree of national discretion about how that money is spent, albeit it is EU money.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Minister told the House that both the slaughter and disposal of the 1 million cattle were complete. How many cattle have been disposed of by incineration and how many have been disposed of by landfill and where are they? Is it right that several thousand tonnes of cattle are still in storage throughout the country awaiting disposal?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right. We have slaughtered about 1,080,000 under the over-30-months

scheme and have not yet been able to dispose of all the carcases. The only way in which we could increase the throughput to 60,000 a week was to substantially increase the cold storage capacity. We have been taking out the specified bovine material and disposing of it immediately and putting the rest of the carcases into cold storage to await the opportunity to render and dispose of them in the appropriate way.

Mr. Michael Clapham: If the Minister chooses any additional abattoirs to deal with the selective cull will he ensure that a transparent procedure is implemented for choosing them? There is a great deal of grievance in the industry because abattoir owners believe that those which were selected for the 30-months-scheme were chosen under a system of secrecy.

Mr. Hogg: It is indeed desirable to have greater transparency and we shall therefore proceed to an open tender system in the new year.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not it important for the House to know that the animal traceability system and the animal identification scheme which exist in Northern Ireland and which will facilitate an early raising of the ban there are precisely those that the Government rejected in 1990 when they were recommended by the Select Committee on Agriculture? Such a scheme was also rejected when it was proposed in amendments to the Bill that led to the Agriculture Act 1993 and in a recommendation in 1995 by the Select Committee on Agriculture. If the Northern Ireland scheme had been implemented throughout the kingdom over the six years that the Opposition have been demanding it, we would not be in the mess that we are in today.

Mr. Hogg: One must always take into account proportionality and the scientific opinion of the time. In the computer-based system that we are discussing we envisage about 40 million movements being recorded. That is hugely in excess of what is recorded on the Northern Ireland computer base and it would require positive justification. With the advantage of hindsight, one can construct a case, but taking account of the scientific judgment at the time the decisions that were taken were correct.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Jeffrey Ennis Esq., for Barnsley, East.

Point of Order

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw to your attention pages 121, 122 and 129 of "Erskine May", which advise on what constitutes contempt of the House in respect of remarks made or printed outside the House? My complaint relates to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whom I have advised of the point of order. On Saturday 14 December—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's message. Such matters must be raised privately with Madam Speaker.

Fisheries

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 9999/96 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, 11016/96 on monitoring Community conservation and management measures applicable to third country fishing vessels, 11164/94 relating to guide prices for fishery products in 1997, 11171/96 relating to third country fisheries agreements, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9 December 1996 relating to Community catch possibilities in NAFO waters for 1997, and on 9 December 1996 relating to reciprocal access and 1997 quotas with Norway.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document COM(96)641 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
Technically, this is a scrutiny debate on proposals to be discussed and decided at the Fisheries Council of Ministers on Thursday and Friday where, among other things, the total allowable catches of the main stocks of fish will be agreed for the forthcoming year.
I shall refer, first, to the practical difficulties we all have in preparing for this debate. As hon. Members know, the availability of papers for the debate is always difficult. It reflects the pressure of events and the need for the latest scientific advice to be available before the Commission makes its proposals and starts negotiations, not just with the European Union, but with third countries such as Norway. I have taken the matter up with the Fisheries Commissioner and I assure the House that I have done everything humanly possible to ensure that papers are available in as much time as possible. I wrote on 13 December to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation to provide the very latest information on the outcome of the negotiations with Norway, and copies of the letter were made available in the Vote Office.
By custom, this debate has become an annual opportunity more generally to review the state and prospects of the United Kingdom's fishing industry. It is always right to recall what a hazardous activity fishing can be. In spite of all the technological advances, many fishermen lose their lives at sea as they seek to make their living. In this, the centenary year of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, we must not forget the realities of the industry.
Undoubtedly, the UK fishing industry faces many challenges. It is a diverse industry, ranging from large refrigerated trawlers fishing in distant waters and spending months at sea, to small coastal trawlers that spend no more than a day away from port. Often it seems that we are beset only by bad news about fishing, but it


would be a mistake to underestimate the achievements of UK fishermen and the UK fishing industry or the investment that the industry is making in its own future.
When I visited Peterhead recently, fishermen there made it clear to me that licences—simply the opportunity to catch fish—were being sold for up to £1 million. Recent press reports have commented that the Shetland island of Whalsay alone has at least 20 millionaire fishermen who own the lion's share of the island's £16 million fishing fleet. Just about a week ago, the newest trawler from Whalsay, the 211 ft Zephyr, which is capable of carrying 16,000 tonnes of fish, set out on her maiden voyage. That new boat is estimated to have cost £9 million and it is the latest of seven ships being built for Shetland fishermen. That has been made possible by increased incomes from fishing. Indeed, the value of fish landed in the UK in the first nine months of this year has increased by some 6 per cent. on last year and that increase in value is reflected in improved turnovers at our main fish markets.
I have recently visited fish markets such as Peterhead, Plymouth and Billingsgate, all of which have reported to me substantially increased turnover and increased profits. At Plymouth, for example, sales through the market are expected to have increased from just under £1.5 million in 1994 to nearly £5 million in 1996. In part, that improvement reflects the investment that is being made, often with the help of Government marketing grants. In total, about £63 million has been paid to the industry from public and Community funds in the past three years, with a further £68 million under other EU structural grant measures. Those improvements also reflect, however, increasing consumption and improved value of catches. According to the national food survey published just a few days ago, fish consumption in the UK in the past three years is as high as it has been for more than 20 years. It is important, therefore, to put the UK fishing industry's prospects into proper context.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sure that the Minister would concede that fishermen at Peterhead and elsewhere are concerned about the flags of convenience issue. The President of the Board of Trade said that, at the intergovernmental conference, the 48-hour directive was
the issue that matters to the Government and we intend to insist upon it."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 163.]
If the Government were to secure agreement on quota hopping—treaty changes to resolve the flags of convenience issue—would they not then agree to the changes, unless and until the 48-hour directive was also agreed? Is it more important to save the fishing industry or to stop working people taking holidays?

Mr. Baldry: One of the reasons I am glad I went to Peterhead is that it reminded me just how much I dislike the Scottish National party. It is so disingenuous; it proclaims that the only future for an independent Scotland is in the European Union, within which it would sign up lock, stock and barrel to the common fisheries policy. I will talk about quota hoppers in some detail, and make clear yesterday's comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that it is important that we resolve at the intergovernmental conference the issue both of the 48-hour week and of quota hoppers. If the hon. Gentleman bides his time, he will hear me deal with those issues in terms.
Not all parts or sectors of the UK fishing industry are doing so well. Some ports are under pressure and the industry overall faces substantial challenges, not least the availability of fish to catch.
I know that Fleetwood has experienced a considerable reduction in its fleet, so it is important for it to be able to attract additional throughput of fish. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will have shared my pleasure at the grants that I was able to announce recently to aid facilities for packing and processing there, which will, I hope, help sustain activity at Fleetwood.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) is here for the moment, but following the announcement of that grant, morale in Fleetwood has improved.

Mr. Baldry: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation of that and that Fleetwood is beginning to see that, with our help, there is a clear future for the port.
Equally, there have been massive changes in the port of Grimsby as access to fish stocks has fallen, but there are some positive signs. During the past year, I have been pleased to participate in the opening of the new Grimsby harbour facilities, in the opening of a new fish processing factory and in the launch of a vessel. Those are just some of the signs of investment there and I understand that throughput is rising.
In addition, I have been able to announce a significant number of grants for investment in fish processing and linked facilities in Grimsby, all of which, I hope the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will in due course acknowledge, is reason for optimism for the fisheries infrastructure in Grimsby. It is now, I think, the leading fish processing centre in the Europe, and it would be justified in taking pride in that.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend has said that he will refer in detail to quota hopping and, subject to early evening constituency engagements, I look forward to hearing those details in some length, which will, I am sure, assist the House, but will he explain the balance of Government policy on these matters? He referred to investment in modern fishing vessels and the high cost of the technology and equipment. Bearing it in mind that British investors buy other non-British boats, that Spanish investors buy British boats, that Dutch investors buy British, that British buy Dutch, that Dutch buy German, that German buy French, and that investors in Scotland buy English boats in accordance with their rights under the treaty of Rome and the developing single market, is it not wrong for the Government to highlight quota hopping at the expense of other parameters and to give the impression that they want to restrict the market and, indeed, the free enterprise notion of the single market?

Mr. Baldry: I will deal with quota hoppers, but let me deal with my hon. Friend's point. May I say that I will try to deal with every issue. If I have not, I ask hon. Members to intervene. In all fairness, my hon. Friend is mistaken to this extent. He and I and, I think, every hon.
Member strongly support the notion of a single market. The UK has done more to promote the single market than any other member state in Europe because we want the EU to be a trading entity. Fishing is the only area of Community activity where there are national quotas, and it makes a lot of sense to ensure that UK fishing quotas can benefit UK fishermen.
Fishing is a hunting activity. Fishing boats are designed to track down and catch as many fish as possible. To ensure sustainable levels of fish for fishermen for years to come, there is always a difficult balance to be struck between enabling the industry to maximise today's catch and ensuring that there are sufficient fish in the sea for years to come. On that issue, Ministers with responsibility for fisheries are inevitably prone to be criticised, both by fishermen for not allowing them to catch as many fish as they should like, and by conservationists for allowing fishermen to catch more fish than they consider to be wise.
In coming to conclusions, we have to have regard to the advice of fisheries scientists, but we also have to give careful attention and consideration to the advice of fishermen themselves as to the strength and sustainability of stocks. After all, it is they who are fishing the waters day by day. They know what they are catching. They know the strength of the stocks and it is their future that is at stake.
In the negotiations at the Fisheries Council this coming Thursday and Friday, my negotiating objectives closely reflect the UK fishing industry's concerns. The House will not be surprised that I have had close and detailed discussions with the UK fishing industry as a whole, stock by stock, on what we shall be seeking to achieve at the forthcoming Council of Ministers meeting. For some key fish stocks, it is proposed that the total allowable catch be increased; for others, the proposal is to maintain the status quo, but there are inevitably some where, on the basis of scientific advice and evidence, it is suggested that, to conserve stocks, catches must be reduced. Where that is so, there is a balance to be struck, taking account of the short-term costs to the industry of quota cuts, and the medium-term benefits that should flow from recovery of stocks.
I pay close attention to the advice of the fishing industry. After all, it is fishermen who gain or lose if the management decisions are wrong. At this week's Council meeting, I shall seek to ensure that the eventual quota for UK fishermen is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to all the facts.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister of State has described his visits to various ports in England and to Peterhead. I do not know whether he has been to west Scotland recently but, if he has, or if he talks to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, he will know the concern about the west Scotland haddock quota. Will the Minister of State press for a substantial increase in that quota? Fishermen should have told him that their view is that the reduction would be detrimental to fishing in west Scotland.

Mr. Baldry: I have not been to west Scotland. I have been to Macduff, whence many fishermen fish off the

west of Scotland. They have brought me up to date with the concerns. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that west Scotland haddock is high on our list of priorities for improvement at the forthcoming Council meeting. I am aware, as is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, of the importance of input on those issues.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Bearing it in mind that there is no longer any swap between the Dutch allowances and those of the south-west and the North sea, will my hon. Friend say something about area VIIe and Dover sole, and whether there could be increases for west country fishermen in VIIe and no decline for fishermen in VIIf or VIIg?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that, when I met representatives of the UK fishing industry to discuss the issue, those from the south-west expressed concern about that particular stock. I made it clear that it is one of our negotiating objectives to improve the situation. We are the main beneficiaries of that stock. We believe that there should be some reasonable improvement on what the Commission has proposed, and I will be trying to achieve that. It is a very valuable stock for the industry in the south-west.
I have no doubt that there will be some tough negotiations in Brussels this coming Thursday and Friday, but my colleagues who have responsibility for fisheries matters in the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office and I are agreed and well focused on the stocks of importance to the United Kingdom in respect of which we want improvement. I am determined that we will achieve substantial improvements on the Commission's proposals.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: I will deal with Northern Ireland in a moment. I promise that I will not miss out anybody. Hon. Members can rest assured that there is not a Member or a port with a fishing interest that will be left out of the debate tonight. I promise hon. Members that it will be like a gazetteer of the United Kingdom.
At this point, perhaps I can assure my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that I have listened carefully to the views of fishermen from Lowestoft and elsewhere along the east coast and that I appreciate their concern about the level of the plaice quota in the North sea. With the prospect of a quota little different from this year, I can say now that I do not envisage carrying out a North sea plaice swap at the Council. That meets the concerns of those who depend on the North sea plaice and ensures an approach consistent with last year. That was fairly acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). Of course, what I will do for the south-west—as I did last year—is seek further international swaps during the year which will be of benefit to it.
One issue that is always difficult—and this may relate to what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) wants to say—and causes concern at the Council is whether to invoke the Hague preference. When the system of national quotas was established, that convention was introduced, to give the UK and Ireland a prior claim


to certain stocks. Until recently, we have been overall beneficiaries of that convention, especially in Scotland. We are now no longer beneficiaries overall.
The immediate difficulty arises when the Republic of Ireland invokes its Hague preference in the Irish sea, largely at the expense of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. In response to that, I shall want co use international quota swaps to increase our quotas in the Irish sea for the direct benefit of the Northern Irish fishing industry. I shall want, so far as is possible, to mitigate the immediate disadvantages to the Northern Irish industry which result from the Hague preference.
Beyond that, we need to consider whether having the Hague preference is still of benefit to the UK. I have agreed with the UK fishing industry as a whole that the Hague preference is an issue which it would be sensible for us to revisit calmly and in some detail in the new year, involving the whole of the industry. That has been agreed as a sensible way forward by everyone concerned, including the industries in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree with what the Minister said about getting rid of the Hague preference. However, it does not extend to Grimsby. For some reason, the definition of north Britain ends at Flamborough head.
If the Minister is to provide compensation to Northern Ireland for the absence of the Hague preference for its ports and fishermen, the same should apply to the west-coast fisheries that do not benefit from the Hague preference either.

Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the approach I am taking. However, there is a slight misunderstanding. It is not simply a question of the absence of the Hague preference—Northern Ireland loses fish because the Republic invokes the Hague preference. The areas in the North sea where the hon. Gentleman's fleets fish do not lose fish through the invocation of Hague preference. That is the difference.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister is aware that Northern Irish fishermen are angry because, under the Hague preference, they are not permitted to take fish out of the water, yet part of their quota can be taken out of the water by the Irish Republic. That is unacceptable to them. They feel that the Hague preference must be renegotiated.
Is the Minister aware that there is an abundance of haddock in the Irish sea? In fact, the scientists in Europe told us at a meeting in Brussels that they did not understand why there was so much haddock. They thought it was so scarce that it should not be fished. The same is true of herring and nephrops. Why cannot the quota for Northern Ireland fishermen be left the same when there is such an abundance of fish in the Irish sea?

Mr. Baldry: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that I was in Northern Ireland the other day talking to the industry. I fully appreciate its concerns about the invocation of the Hague preference. Of course, it is the Republic of Ireland that invokes it. The representatives of the UK and I have agreed that it is now

time to reconsider. Overall, the UK no longer benefits from the Hague preference. Therefore, it must be time to revisit it.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I do not intend to do so again. I can anticipate his intervention. The representatives of the Scottish industry who were present at the meeting this morning agreed with our approach. They thought it sensible to revisit the issue of the Hague preference calmly and coolly in the new year.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be misleading the House for a Minister to suggest that he has the agreement of an industry, when in fact all he did was tell its representatives what he was going to do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not something for the Chair to judge.

Mr. Baldry: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I had a meeting with representatives of the industry, at which they had every opportunity to express concerns about the approach that I intend to take. They made it clear to me that they saw that approach as sensible. They agreed that we should revisit the issue of the Hague preference calmly and sensibly in the new year.
I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim—the question of haddock. As we all know, the Republic of Ireland tends, for a number of reasons, to talk down stocks in the Irish sea. My approach will be based on best science, having regard to what is sensible for and in the best interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry. We need to ensure that the quotas available for the Northern Irish industry are based on best science and what is in the industry's interests, not on the interests of any other member of the Community. That will be my approach, and I hope that hon. Members agree that it is a sensible way forward.
I make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is mischief making, that I want to take the matter forward, calmly and collectively, as a UK industry issue, because different parts of the UK have different approaches to the issue, but it is important that they are all involved and that the matter is discussed calmly and coolly.
During the debate last year, there was much comment on the subject of quota hoppers. I think that, by now, everyone is aware of the nature of quota hoppers. The national quotas allocated under the common fisheries policy are intended to provide for the fishermen and fishing communities of member states. Quota hoppers use UK national quotas, yet they are essentially foreign owned, foreign skippered, foreign crewed vessels that never land their catch in the UK and bring no economic benefit to the UK—but in the eyes of the law they are UK fishing boats. It is clearly a crazy situation. Thanks to the persistence of my hon. Friends from the south-west, especially my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks), for South Hams and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), we have all focused on


the need to ensure that it cannot be permitted to continue. That is why the Government have tabled treaty changes at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
We are seeking enabling powers that would allow us to insist on there being real economic links between vessels that fish our quotas and the coastal communities that depend on them. We want to be able to introduce, as necessary, requirements on national ownership, residency, crewing, port of operation and landings without the risk of successful challenge before the European Court.
I want to ensure that the UK fish quota is available for the benefit of UK fishermen. Everyone now realises that the issue of quota hoppers will not go away, that it has to be resolved, and that we must ensure that the fish that go with the UK's fish quotas are available for UK fishermen. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at Dublin, the resolution of that issue is a key priority.
Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated:
For example, we believe the social chapter should not be introduced by the back door—that is something on which the Prime Minister has made our position very clear; we have to look out for the interests of our fishing communities who have been gravely damaged by the way in which the quota-hopping phenomena have been distorted very much to our disadvantage. These are two clear examples which are fundamental to our objectives in the negotiation … We have made it very, very clear. At the end of the day, the intergovernmental conference reaches a successful conclusion when all the member states are content with the outcome. We have indicated we will not be satisfied with an outcome that does not address for example the two points that I have just raised.
I know that the fishing industry knows that we are determined to take effective action on quota hoppers. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because his comments are most reassuring. They are particularly reassuring after the Prime Minister's clear statement, today, that, in June, in Amsterdam, he would—in the hopeful event of another Conservative Government—veto a revised treaty if a quota-hopping amendment were not incorporated into it.
Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? The Government's proposed draft protocol to deal with the quota hopping problem was not included in the draft produced by the Irish at Dublin. That proposal, with other proposals from other nations, slipped into the appendix. Is he hopeful that, between now and Amsterdam, that proposal will be incorporated into a revised treaty, as the Government hope and expect?

Mr. Baldry: Absolutely; and I think that no one can be in any doubt that everyone in Europe realises that quota hopping is a problem that must be resolved. When the Spanish Prime Minister recently visited Britain to meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it could not have been lost on anyone—least of all on anyone in Spain—that much of the questioning by journalists was not on long-standing bilateral issues between the United Kingdom and Spain, such as Gibraltar, but on the issue of quota hopping. It is not an issue that will go away, and our colleagues in Europe understand that.
The Prime Minister made it very clear at Dublin that the problem of quota hopping will not disappear and that it must be resolved. Furthermore, my right hon. and


learned Friend the Foreign Secretary could not have made any clearer our commitment to resolving the issue than he did yesterday, when he said that we will not be satisfied with an outcome of the intergovernmental conference that does not address that issue. It is quite clear that the fishing industry understands our commitment to resolving the issue.
In the mean time, I am determined to ensure that all fishing vessels in the UK abide by the rules, irrespective of ownership or of place of landing. Earlier today, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), I provided a list of all the prosecutions taken by the Ministry this year that resulted in fines of £5,000 or more. Many of those prosecutions concerned foreign vessels. Of those concerning UK vessels, more than half involved quota hoppers. That fact concerns me, and I am sure that it concerns the House. I shall be investigating what can be done to strengthen compliance with the law.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: Have I given way already to the hon. Gentleman? Yes, I have.
Quota hoppers currently comprise about 20 per cent. of our offshore fleet. I made it clear that we do not intend to contemplate any further compulsory decommissioning or reduction in the UK fishing effort until the entire matter of quota hoppers is satisfactorily resolved.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend should know that the stand he has taken over the past year—specifically on quota hopping, but also on many other fishing issues—has been greatly appreciated in the south-west. Does he agree that that issue—as valuable as his comments on quota hopping are—is merely an aspect of a far wider problem: the common fisheries policy? In turn, that policy throws into question the entire basis on which we participate in Europe. Does he look forward to a time when the basis on which we conduct our fishing policy is much more in tune with a sensible way in which to do things than with operating a policy that requires him to apply a type of aggressive sticking plaster to deal with problems in a very narrow manner? That action is very worth while, but it is based on a policy that does not work.

Mr. Baldry: I shall deal at some length with the type of reforms that I should like to be made to the fisheries policy, but I should tell my hon. Friend and the House that we would be misleading ourselves if we believed that simply exiting the common fisheries policy would resolve all our problems, because we would still have to negotiate bilateral arrangements with our fellow member states. In recent weeks, for example, many of us have been preoccupied by the dispute between Guernsey and France. Guernsey is not a member of the European Union or of the common fisheries policy, but that does not stop it disputing with France access to waters. That dispute must be resolved bilaterally.
Much of my time is spent attempting to resolve disputes within the UK fishing fleet, which may be between conflicting interests. I shall say more in a moment about the conflict—which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge will know only too well—in south Devon


between trawlermen and crabbers. As he also knows, in the south-west there are occasionally quite serious disputes between the English fleet and the Scottish fleet.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: No; I should like to deal with one or two questions at a time.
The idea that simply exiting the common fisheries policy would resolve all our problems is mistaken. However, of course we require substantial reform of the common fisheries policy, and I shall deal with that issue in some detail.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that bilateral negotiations do not all always work to our advantage, as we saw in the dispute with Iceland? Many years ago, the Iceland Government offered us 64,000 pounds of cod, which was turned down by the then Labour Government, who wanted twice that amount. Ultimately, however, we received nothing at all. That was one of the reasons why the fishing fleet at Fleetwood declined so severely.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. It would be fair to say that part of the challenge and part of the difficulties currently faced by the UK fishing industry are a consequence of the long-term loss of our distant waters. Negotiations on those distant waters were bilateral.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. James Wallace: rose—

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made a fatuous point at the start of this debate.

Mr. Wallace: indicated dissent.

Mr. Baldry: I shall deal in a moment with the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) about coastal waters.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, I will not.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is frit.

Mr. Baldry: No, I am not. The hon. Gentleman's jumping up and down like a schoolboy will not cause me to give way to him. He made a fatuous point at the beginning of this debate. If he wishes to, he can make his own points in his own manner in his own time.
The UK industry has other concerns. Many of my hon. Friends have understandable concerns that the six and 12-mile fishery limits, which restrict access by foreign vessels to waters around the British coast, will form part of the review in 2002. That matter has been a concern particularly for my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—who has visited many ports this year—and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). We have made it

clear that, for us, the six and 12-mile limits are, and will remain, non-negotiable, and that any interference with those limits is unacceptable.
The restrictions on access by foreign fishing vessels within our six and 12-mile limits are an essential derogation from the equal access provisions under the common fisheries policy. We insisted on them when we joined the Community; they were extended unanimously in 1983 and 1992; and we intend to get a definitive establishment of these restrictions as a part of the CFP at the earliest possible opportunity.
I intend that, as soon as possible, we shall seek to secure the agreement of all member states that there will be no relaxation of, and no change to, the six and 12-mile fishery limits in 2002 and that the six and 12-mile limits should be considered permanent features of the CFP.
Going around the fishing ports of the UK, I have detected a considerable sense of alienation among members of the fishing industry at the way in which fishing policy generally emerges. I am convinced that fishermen must have more say in fishing policy. It is for that reason that I have not only sought to have as many meetings as possible with representatives of the fishing industry, but I have ensured that they have much greater contact with fisheries scientists.
Much more needs to be done, however. That is why I have suggested to European colleagues that there needs to be a pattern of regional committees to take forward good fisheries management. That would mean that member states which have fishing quota in particular waters should come together on a regular basis, whether at ministerial or official level. Most important, they must involve their respective fishing industries and fishermen to discuss how those waters can best be managed in the short and long-term interests of fishermen.
I want fishermen to be fully involved with the development and management of the common fisheries policy. We are making our contribution, which is why much closer contacts have been developed over the past year, including ministerial contacts with fishermen. I and the other UK fisheries Ministers have had numerous meetings with fishermen around the coast in order to hear their views first hand and to explain Government policy.
In addition, there have been numerous meetings between the industry and the Government's fisheries scientists to improve fishermen's understanding of the science underlying fisheries management and to give them the opportunity to make their own contribution. We need to do more, and it should be done by creating regional committees of fishermen and officials from different member states to study developments and to feed in advice before decisions are taken. I am glad to say that, at our request, the European Commission has agreed that such a pilot committee should be established. That is good news.
For the longer term, I should want to see what powers could be devolved to such committees based on the perfectly commonsense principles of subsidiarity and decisions being best taken where they are most relevant. I believe that by involving the fishing industry much more in its own future, fisheries management overall will improve considerably.
Our fishing industry has been at the forefront of making suggestions for technical conservation measures to conserve fish stocks and to make fishing more selective


and reduce discards. We also have to tackle industrial fishing which is why, at the forthcoming Fisheries Council, we are arguing for a limit be to placed on the number of sand-eels that can be caught.
The UK took the initiative on conservation measures in setting up a fisheries conservation group, bringing together fishermen, fisheries scientists and administrators. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to make my speech for me, he is very welcome to do so. In the spirit of Christmas, and to put the hon. Gentleman out of his pain, I happily give way to him.

Mr. Wallace: The tactic worked. The Minister said earlier that there was some link between the Government's policy on quota hopping and resistance to any compulsory further reduction in the UK fleet. Will he clarify precisely what the policy is? In June this year he was talking about trying to assemble a minority block to stop the proposals for multi-annual guidance programme—MAGP—IV but, in October, the Prime Minister talked about not implementing further compulsory cuts. Clearly, a measure could be agreed with Britain opting out, but what is the Minister's position—not to implement or to try to assemble a blocking minority?

Mr. Baldry: We made it clear that we do not intend to contemplate any further reductions in either the UK fishing capacity or effort control until the issue of quota hoppers is resolved.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Answer the question.

Mr. Baldry: I am going to answer the question. We have to bear it in mind that the Council of Ministers has made little, if any, progress with MAGP IV. The Commission's proposals were roundly condemned by all members of the Council of Ministers. Working hard, the presidency proposed a compromise that commanded the support only of Ireland—that is not surprising as Ireland had the presidency—and Luxembourg. No progress was made at the last Council of Ministers meeting. It was agreed to adjourn the matter with a view to further discussions by officials. I understand that there have been two meetings at official level, but they sought merely to restate some basic principles on which many of them were not even agreed. The latest meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or COREPER, discussed what would happen if there was no decision on MAGP IV before the end of this year.
As I told representatives of the UK fishing industry, the possibilities are almost endless, and a number of hypothetical situations could arise. The industry and the House may rest assured that, whatever situation arises, we shall fulfil the commitment I made that we shall not be implementing any further reduction in capacity or effort control until the issue of quota hoppers is resolved. However, it is impossible to say exactly what shape that will take as no one can tell when, if or how the Community will come to a decision on MAGP IV.
The United Kingdom took the initiative on conservation measures by setting up a fisheries conservation group. The results of the group's work provided a strong starting

point for the UK's contribution to Community discussions on technical conservation. We are now pressing the Community to ensure that fishing gear and practices are managed according to rules that are fair to all, which reduce the catch of unwanted small fish and so help reduce discards and enable stocks to recover.
Disappointingly, the Commission has not taken on board as many of our and the UK industry's suggestions as I should have hoped. In large part, that is because it clearly feels the need to find technical conservation measures which can apply to all Community waters. Of course, these are extremely difficult to find, and again demonstrate the need for sensible regional management. Different waters doubtless require different conservation measures. For conservation measures to be successful, they need to command the support of the industry; and to command its support, we need the involvement of the fishing industry. The UK fishing industry and the Government are very largely at one in our concerns about the Commission proposals on technical conservation, and I shall continue to argue those concerns in detail whenever the need arises.
There is also understandable concern in the fishing industry, particularly among owners of smaller vessels, about the amount of regulation with which they have to cope. I feel strongly that the position of smaller vessels needs to be protected in the interests of deregulation. Vessels under 10 m in length already have a much lighter administrative regime and do not have to complete logbooks. Data on the catches of these vessels are collected in a non-bureaucratic way. Vessels under 18 m in length are exempt from the reporting provisions for western waters, and I shall want smaller vessels to be exempt from the requirements of any satellite monitoring.
More generally, I shall try to ensure that we keep to the absolute minimum the regulatory burden on fishermen. That is something for which we must continue to press. I am grateful to my hon Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Castle Point for bringing home to Commissioner Bonino during their recent visit to Brussels the special needs of inshore fishermen.
In recent months, many hon. Members have spoken to me about their concerns for the long-term future of the industry. The very practical problems faced by some fishermen are well illustrated by those in Start bay. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams approached me about the problems of conflicting interests there. If there are conflicts locally, I hope that they can be resolved locally. If the Devon sea fisheries committee proposes a byelaw, I shall want to be satisfied that it is proportionate and does not simply seek to advance the interests of any one group.
My hon. Friend has also rightly drawn my attention to the concerns about membership of sea fisheries committees. These have an important role in the local management of inshore fisheries, a role which has expanded with their limits being extended from 3 to 6 miles, and with increasing environmental interest. I assure the House that, when new appointments are made to these committees next year, I shall be careful to take account of this changed situation.
With one of the largest fishing fleets in his constituency for a decade or more, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, like other hon. Members from the south-west, has impressed on the Government the


problems facing the industry and suggested how they might best be tackled. Not surprisingly, his help has paid dividends, with the Brixham trawlermen landing a larger and more valuable catch in the past couple of years and the shell fishermen on the coastline also benefiting. All the hon. Members with whom I have had meetings on the subject are tireless workers for the industry and for individual fishermen.

Mr. Steen: In return, may I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the help and support that he has given to my local industry? The fishermen in Brixham and the shell fishermen have been immensely supported and rewarded by his constant attention to their problems. I pay a personal tribute to his support for the industry.

Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. All hon. Members, across parties, are concerned to secure the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry—in Newlyn, in Brixham, in the Thames estuary, in Skegness, in Northern Ireland or in Scotland.
Another example of local concerns was provided this summer by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and for Wyre, who went to considerable lengths to explain the problems facing Fleetwood and the efforts that all those involved were making to restore the fortunes of that key port. I have been greatly impressed by how the industry throughout the United Kingdom is looking ahead and planning for the future. I wish that it were within my gift to convert two fish to 5,000. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am prepared to listen to the industry and to consider how the management of our quotas might be improved. We are now considering proposals from the industry for long-term changes to the quota management system. Of course all fishermen want to catch more.
I know that fishermen in the south-east have experienced major problems as quotas have diminished and have come under pressure from quota hoppers. Many colleagues have pressed for action to assist the non-sector. Concern comes from many parts of the coast and has been voiced by my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), among others. We have taken account, and will continue to take account, of the needs of the non-sector. We have introduced underpinning for the quota allocations made to the under-10 m fleet and to the non-sector. Next year, that is to be extended to the non-sector allocations for North sea plaice, whiting, channel cod and sole. Despite all the difficulties facing us, we have managed to keep open our main inshore fisheries to the under-10 m fleet to the end of this year.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job on behalf of our fishermen. The under-10 m fleet brings in less than 2 per cent. of this country's white fish take, but it accounts for the majority of boats on the sea. Will my hon. Friend consider removing those boats entirely from regulation? That seems the right way to manage sea fish conservation and the fishing industry. Commissioner Bonino has undertaken to consider the legislative and financial implications. Will my hon. Friend bring the suggestion forward on every possible occasion?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend knows from my visits to Leigh-on-Sea—I have also visited other ports in the

Thames estuary and Rye—that I have taken on board the concerns of the non-sector. We have to consider how the non-sector can avoid being squeezed out. Many people earn their living from the non-sector, often in small boats and in difficult circumstances, subjected to the vagaries of the weather. I hope that I have made it clear to those in the non-sector that I fully appreciate their concerns.
I think that there is no disagreement in the House on the fact that the common fisheries policy is not working as it was intended and needs to be reformed. It is over-bureaucratic, it has failed to protect fish stocks sustainably, it is open to abuse and, above all, it is not fair to British fishermen. We are determined to change all that. We have made it clear to the industry how we intend to do that and are taking the issue forward to ensure that the common fisheries policy is, as far as possible, of real benefit to United Kingdom fishermen. We shall shortly issue a response to the report of the CFP review group. We are signalling the key elements that we are aiming for now and in preparation for the 2002 review.
We have made it clear that we totally reject any idea of a single European fishing fleet, managed and policed from Brussels. There are regular suggestions in the media that plans exist to create such a fleet. The present rules of the common fisheries policy place responsibility for managing quotas and vessels on member states. It is also a national responsibility to enforce fisheries regulations in national waters out to 200 miles. We shall reject any proposals that those national responsibilities should be taken away and that there should in any way be a single community fleet, managed and policed from Brussels.
I believe that the fishing industry recognises that much has been achieved this year. The industry and the Government agree on what remains to be done. I recognise that the practical politics of life are such that opposition parties feel it necessary to try to create divisions on the issue. That is a pity, because it would be in the best interests of the fishing industry throughout the UK if the House were, for once, able to send out a united and unanimous endorsement to Europe and elsewhere of what we are seeking to achieve for our fishing industry.
I am determined that the UK fishing industry should have a clear future and a strong future as we go into the 21st century. The fishermen of Britain can be confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my fellow fisheries Ministers and I—indeed, the whole Government—are determined to do all that is necessary to secure the industry's future.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
believes that the failure of this Government in its seventeen years of office to tackle the problems facing the fishing industry is an unacceptable threat to the future of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland; regrets the failure of the United Kingdom Government to implement a decommissioning policy until 1993; recognises that fishing by non-UK vessels against UK quotas is unacceptable to our fishing industry and calls for effective action to tackle quota-hopping; regrets the Government's failure to prevent increased Spanish access to the Irish Box and Western Waters from I January 1996; concludes that the United Kingdom Government has not represented effectively in Europe the interests of this country's fishing industry; further recognises that the overriding priority for the Common Fisheries Policy must be the conservation of fish stocks, without which the fishing industry


cannot survive; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to work in Europe to achieve reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy that ensure the conservation and fair allocation of fish stocks with effective enforcement by all European States".
As the Minister said, this is the major annual fisheries debate. It is an opportunity for the House to pass judgment on the Government's handling of fisheries policy and their treatment of our fishing communities during the year. As usual, it is taking place before the main Fisheries Council meeting at Christmas, rightly giving hon. Members a chance to express their views on the proposals—not least those on total allowable catches and quotas—that will come up before the Council later this week.
I should like to raise several points about the Fisheries Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will deal with more issues when he winds up. There are important questions on quotas to be dealt with and it is understandable that hon. Members on both sides should raise detailed points when local fishermen are worried about the effects on them of the proposals.
There is also concern about the effect on Northern Ireland of the Hague preference. We must address that. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who said that he had received a letter from the Government about that. It is right to mention that.
There is no question but that the Northern Ireland fishing communities have had a raw deal compared with those in the Irish Republic under the common fisheries policy. That is indisputable, considering how the amount of fish landed in the different fishing ports has changed from the traditional patterns since implementation of the CFP. However, any alterations made to the arrangements in an attempt to protect and help the fishermen of Northern Ireland—clearly, we strongly support that aim—must not damage other fishing communities in the United Kingdom. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland agree.
When the Minister states, as he has to, that the issue will be resolved through international quota swapping, we must ask questions. Presumably, the Republic of Ireland will not give up quota without something in return from the United Kingdom, although the swap may be more complicated than that. We simply put down a marker that any quota swap must be handled with caution because if a quota swap was to the disadvantage of fishing communities in, for example, the south-west of England, that would be a matter of legitimate concern for both sides of the House.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the Opposition spokesman's recognition that the Hague preference is a major problem for the County Down fishing industry. This year alone, the current proposals for the United Kingdom—and that is mainly Northern Ireland in this context—under the Hague preference will mean a loss of 800 tonnes of cod, 1,000 tonnes of whiting and 300 tonnes of plaice. We in Northern Ireland want to hear not only what the Government intend to do about this, but what the Opposition would do to tackle the problem.

Dr. Strang: I will certainly come to that point. I am very conscious of some of the other concerns that Northern Ireland fishermen, along with other UK fishermen, have in relation to Government policy.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Strangford says and we are grateful for the information he has given the House. There is no question but that the invocation of the Hague preference by the Republic of Ireland is unacceptable in terms of its impact on the fishing communities in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Republic, although it claims its preference, does not always fish it? We then lose out completely. Northern Ireland is not losing out because of arrangements with other fishing fleets round the United Kingdom coast. The argument is with Dublin and with the Hague preference, and it must be faced. The fishermen of Northern Ireland do not want a revision of the preference. They want that part of the Hague preference to be taken away completely so that no Government can say, "We are taking your fish and even though we do not fish them all, you are getting none of them."

Dr. Strang: Again, the House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As he says, the Republic of Ireland seems to have got such a generous quota that its fishermen have not, on many occasions, been able to fish up to the quota. That is what I meant when I said that Northern Ireland fishermen had got a raw deal from the implementation of the policy compared with fishermen in the Republic. I point out to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe has visited the issue before; this is not a matter in which we have suddenly taken an interest. We recognise that the problem must be addressed.
I come now to a matter which concerns fishermen throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The debate is not just about total allowable catches, quotas and the Hague preference, which are important, but about multi-annual guidance programme IV. It is also about the cuts that will be imposed on our fishing fleet. The reality is that there are many communities—I include the fishing communities of Northern Ireland—where decommissioning is not a panacea and is not acceptable because it means selling jobs and the livelihood of future generations of fishermen.
The Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was inadequate because he raised an important point. The Government have said that they will not implement multi-annual guidance programme IV, whatever is agreed, until the issue of quota hopping is sorted out. We support that point. That should mean that the Government will continue to block any agreement on the multi-annual guidance programme along the lines being advocated by the Commission or the presidency. That is an extremely important point.
Surely to goodness even this Government, whose record on the matter has been disastrous as I shall explain later, will manage to sustain a blocking minority to prevent any agreement on cuts in our fleet, not just at the next Fisheries Council meeting, but at subsequent meetings until we have got past the intergovernmental conference and until we have resolved the problem of quota hopping.

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said in my very full answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I did not use the word "implement". I said that we were not


prepared to contemplate any further reduction in UK fishing capacity or fishing effort until matters were resolved in the IGC.
The hon. Gentleman asked about frustrating the Commission and the presidency and about preventing them from bringing forward proposals. We are, of course, making it clear to our colleagues where we find that the proposals have major shortcomings. No decision has yet been taken and it is unlikely that any decision will be taken this coming week. It is very unlikely that any decision will be taken in the foreseeable future.
All sorts of things may arise because many member states are concerned about the structural funds that go with multi-annual guidance programmes III and IV. They are concerned about whether it may be in the interests of everyone to have a roll-over of MAGP III for a further year. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that whatever may arise, I will protect the UK fishing industry and ensure that we continue with our basic premise—that there will be no further reduction in UK fishing capacity or fishing effort until the whole issue of quota hoppers is resolved. I hope that that is perfectly clear.

Dr. Strang: We have heard the word "contemplate" too often over the years. If the Minister is saying that the Government will block the cuts in our fleet—which will mean cuts in the fleets of other member states—that is fine. However, my simple point is this. Blocking agreement will be a success, but coming back here in January—I gather from what the Minister has said that there is no danger of this—and saying that other Governments have agreed to multi-annual guidance programme IV, but that the British Government are not contemplating it will be a very different state of affairs. From what the Minister has said, I trust that we need not worry about that possibility.

Mr. Steen: Nobody doubts the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. I listened, however, to the Minister's speech which was a tour de force. Does the hon. Gentleman really disagree with specific points or are the Opposition just shadow boxing around various issues? I do not understand so far whether the Opposition really disagree with the Government's policy. If they do not disagree and think that the Government are doing a jolly good job, why are they opposing the Government tonight?

Dr. Strang: This is all very fine, but we cannot just ignore the Government's record. Conservative Members staged a most impressive love-in during the debate; we shall see whether that is sustained during the vote. As I said at the beginning, this is not just a debate about what will be discussed in the Fisheries Council; this is the major annual fisheries debate of the year. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) can rest assured that I will come to some of our differences.
There is a serious point which all hon. Members know in their heart of hearts is an extremely important one. The truth is that the decisions in which the Minister will be participating this week will be taken against the background of, I hope, a recognition that we need more effective conservation measures for the stocks that are at risk. There is a legitimate and real concern about what is likely to happen to the fish stocks on which, among others, our fishermen are dependent if effective conservation is not implemented.
I had the pleasure of attending an interesting meeting at the House of Commons organised by the parliamentary and scientific committee; one or two other hon. Members were also there. I heard Professor John Beddington of Imperial college and Mr. Barry Deas, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, give a splendid presentation on the issue. The professor was able to be a bit more detached, but his speech was powerful. Mr. Barry Deas was in some ways more impressive because his first requirement is to meet the daily concerns and needs of fishermen who have to earn a living. Anyone who attended the meeting and anyone who follows these issues knows perfectly well that there is a real issue here which the House of Commons will surely not pretend does not exist.

Mr. Mans: In the light of what he has said, will the hon. Gentleman state how his party will preserve jobs in the fishing industry in the short term while providing stocks of fish in the long term? Bearing that in mind, he did not answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in respect of the Hague preference and the Irish Republic. Will he address that point and say what his party would do about it?

Dr. Strang: I am sorry, but that will not wash. I answered both hon. Gentlemen on the issue of Northern Ireland. However, I shall return to the important point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
To illustrate that there is some common ground, we should recall that in the summer the Minister of State advised the House that nearly 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters that we fish are at risk of biological collapse. Last month, the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas warned that many EU fish stocks are outside safe biological spawning levels while fishing mortality rates are at historically high levels.
As the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded in its excellent report, if action is not taken to conserve fish stocks, it will be too late to prevent total collapses in stocks, as has occurred in the American Georges bank, the Black sea and off the Canadian Grand Banks.
Let me turn to another point that must concern Members on both sides of the House. There is a worrying and growing discrepancy between the total allowable catches that are agreed every year—no doubt they will be agreed again this week in Brussels—and what is actually landed by our fishermen. As hon. Members have acknowledged—I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) who represents an important fishing community—throughout the European Union substantial volumes of fish are being landed outwith the quotas. That is a measure of the failure of both Government policy and the common fisheries policy.
One reason for black fish landings is that fishermen sense that the total allowable catches—and the data on which the TACs are based—takes far too little account of either the fishermen's own experience of current stock levels or the socio-economic effects of wild quota fluctuations. That results in the vicious circle whereby under-reporting by fishermen further jeopardises the accuracy of the catch predictions on which the TAC should be based. Once again this year the ACFM has


stated that misreporting had severely hampered its efforts to assess roundfish stocks in the west of Scotland. Conservative Members need to understand a simple point: if stocks are under pressure, there can be no justification for allowing the additional access of vessels from other member states to exploit those stocks. That is precisely what happened at the beginning of the year in the Irish box and the western waters.
Two Christmases ago, all the Government had to do to construct a blocking minority was to achieve the support of one large country and one small country. Yet even on an issue as clear cut as the over-exploitation of fish stocks in the waters off the south-west of England, they were unable to achieve that blocking minority. If I have pressed the Minister hard on the threatened cuts to our fleet under the multi-annual guidance programme IV, it is because of our experience on that occasion.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Member give way?

Dr. Strang: No, I cannot give way all the time. It is important not only that we use our veto when we have to, but that we construct and maintain a blocking minority and even sometimes achieve a qualified majority. That is how we have to engage in the European Union. There is no easy solution.
The common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. There is a conflict between the implementation of the principle of equal access of member states to the different fisheries within the jurisdiction of the EU and the conservation of fish stocks. Equal access to fish in all the waters of all member states is a concept that stems from the treaty principles of non-discrimination among member states.
Right hon. and hon. Members who have concluded that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the CFP are entitled to that view, but it is not the position of the Labour party. We believe that it is in the interests of the fishing industry that we stay at the European Union negotiating table.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place this afternoon. He opened last year's debate and no one could have described the position better. I remind the House of his words:
Renegotiating the treaty to exclude fisheries from the scope of Community competence would be a monumental and probably impossible task. It would require unanimity and ratification by all member states and that could be bought only at a huge price."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1353–54.]

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He criticised the principle of equal access to the common resource; however he seemed to imply that nothing would persuade him and his party to leave the common fisheries policy. Does he not realise that the principle of equal access to the common resource is the fundamental policy of the common fisheries policy and he cannot have it both ways?

Dr. Strang: I am not attempting to have it both ways any more than the Secretary of State for Scotland did when he spoke in last year's debate. There is common ground between the Government and the official

Opposition and indeed the other parties in the House of Commons that withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not a practical option. I respect the opinion of some Conservative Members who want Britain to withdraw from the European Union. That is a perfectly respectable and arguable position, but the Labour party has no sympathy with that view.
The Labour party believes that the common fisheries policy is in need of radical reform. That is why we set out our commitment to CFP reform in "New Labour, New Life for Britain"—a document that has been endorsed at every level of the Labour party and that will be the basis for the manifesto that we will put to the people of Britain.
A Labour Government will attach a high priority to fisheries policy and to securing a reformed CFP. [Interruption.] The Minister would do well to read some of the debates on the CFP that took place before he took over the job. He should read our recommendations. We welcome his proposal for more regional control and more localised fisheries management. It is clear from the expression on his face that the hon. Member for St. Ives remembers that. I recall advocating that. I also remember the then Agriculture Minister, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, attempting to rubbish that position. He did not succeed in that and I was pleased when that and some of our more important ideas were put forward in the report of the Common Fisheries Policy Review Group—the Goodlad report—which is an excellent document.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no quarrel with us over the fundamentals of the CFP. If he agrees with us on regional management and the other ideas that I put forward, why on earth is he voting against us tonight? That will only send a confused signal to others in Europe. He should join us in the Division Lobby tonight.

Dr. Strang: I can assure the Minister that we consider that the Government's record on fisheries has been a disaster and that they have been utterly ineffective in their ability to represent the fishing industry in the European Union.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party would push for the reform of the current common fisheries policy. Can we return to the original question of the Hague preference? The hon. Gentleman agreed with me that it was damaging to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and, contrary to what may have been implied earlier in the debate, it has been damaging to the United Kingdom fishing industry not just recently, but for the past five years. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman consider it not on a regional basis, but on a United Kingdom basis and let us know what the Labour party would do? Would they work to abolish the Hague preference?

Dr. Strang: With regard to the Hague preference, the Minister of State said today that he had all the fishermen's organisations—[Interruption.] I will answer the right hon. Member for Strangford in the way that hon. Members would expect of me.
Yes, we recognise the problem. Yes, we want action to be taken. When the Minister says that that will be achieved by international quota swapping—that is the


phrase, I believe, but he will correct me if I am wrong—that is fine. But I must say honestly and fairly to the right hon. Member for Strangford—who, I am sure, would not expect anything else—that we cannot give the Government a blank cheque to wreak whatever damage they want on the fishermen on the south-west of England by taking away their quotas; obviously not. [Interruption.] The Minister of State understands the point, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) may not.
As hon. Members who follow such matters know, it is naive to think that there is a load of fish that we can be given for nothing by other member states of the European Union to solve the problem. We hope that the Minister of State will solve it, and that he will do so in a way that will not lead to his hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-west of England to denounce him in January or February. The problem can be solved, but it must be done sensibly.
We should recognise that this is an extremely important fisheries debate. It is not just about the minor points raised by Conservative Members. Of course, I do not refer to the Northern Ireland issue as a minor issue, nor is the multi-annual guidance programme IV a minor issue. The Government Front Bench should take the matter more seriously, or they may come to regret it.
I referred to the Goodlad report, which is an excellent document. I thought that the Minister of State might have dwelt more on it, but perhaps the Minister who winds up will develop it further. The report contains many excellent proposals for the short and medium term, and important proposals for the longer term. If a Labour Government were elected to office, they would want to take up many of the recommendations in the report.
The Government cannot escape their record on fisheries policy: 17 years of failure. Part of the problem is that when a difficulty arises, the Government play it down or ignore it entirely. I was a little disappointed in the Minister's reference to the Guernsey fishermen's problem, which he portrayed as a problem between Guernsey and France. I trust that he is not suggesting that the United Kingdom will wash its hands of an issue that is taking place in British waters.
The Government's policy should be a source of embarrassment to Ministers. It is a pattern of foolish and unfair decisions, often reversed in the face of protest by the fishing industry, the Opposition and Conservative Back-Bench Members, who argue the case for their fishing communities. Right hon. and hon. Members will remember the unfair and unworkable compulsory tie-up regime, which led to the demeaning spectacle of our National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations having to take the British Government to the European Court.
The hon. Member for St. Ives agreed at the time that the Government had deprived the industry of a decommissioning scheme for many years. Decommissioning is not a panacea, and it is unacceptable that our vessels should be decommissioned in order to give greater opportunities to vessels from other member states of the EU to fish in UK waters or waters within the jurisdiction of the EU.
I reminded the House of the Government's disastrous failure to keep the additional Spanish vessels out of the Irish box and the western waters two years ago. That came into force this year. [Interruption.] The Government could not even muster a blocking minority on that issue.
I am pleased that the Government are now addressing the issue of quota hopping. In the case of some high-value species, such as sole, hake and plaice, 40 per cent. of our national quota is affected. Across the national quota as a whole, the figure is about 20 per cent. That is huge—it is disastrous. The problem has not suddenly arisen in the past few months. The Government were in office when the common fisheries policy had its 10-year review and when the new CFP regulation was negotiated. Indeed, the Government held the presidency of the Council of Ministers at the end of 1992, when the new regulation was agreed.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Dr. Strang: No, I will not give way. The Government knew full well that quota hopping was an issue then—the Factortame judgment was in 1991—but they made no serious attempt to resolve the problem. Statements made by Government and fisheries Departments on their negotiating list show no trace of any move to solve the problem. In the statement made by the then Minister—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)— on the conclusion of the negotiations, there is no mention of any moves to resolve the problem of quota hopping.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: The Government are now talking tough on quota hopping. We welcome that. When the matter was raised at Agriculture Question Time, the Minister indicated that he was on the verge of resolving the matter.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I repeat: I am not giving way.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Dr. Strang: Again, I am not giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) says that he is not giving way, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) should listen and resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need a comment.

Dr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether that was a promotion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am not sure which hon. Members were in the House for the most recent Agriculture Question Time, but those who were present will recall the assertive way in which the Minister said that the Government were on the verge of resolving quota hopping. Those of us who follow such matters closely saw the great build-up to his visit to Plymouth, where he was to announce his plan to tackle quota hopping. Many of us wondered what the Government's secret weapon was.
Hon. Members now know what the secret weapon was: English lessons for Spanish fishermen. That is what the Minister said. We would tackle the problem of quota hopping not just by the Spanish, but presumably also by the Dutch, by requiring those fishermen to speak English before they were given a licence to fish against our national quota. I give way to the Minister if he wants to add to that.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman knows full well how we are going to resolve the issue of quota hoppers. We have made clear to the House the change in the protocols, and I made that clear in my speech. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood some tongue-in-cheek comments by me. On the day the Spanish Prime Minister visited the UK, he was subjected to far more questions on quota hopping than on any other issue. He went away in no doubt that that the matter had to be resolved. That is what those comments in Plymouth achieved: we have ensured that everyone in Europe realises that the problem will not go away and must be solved.

Dr. Strang: It is certainly a problem that must be solved. That is the second time the Minister has referred to all the questions put by journalists to the Spanish Minister of Agriculture. I very much doubt whether all the questions from all the journalists, whether in Plymouth, London or anywhere else, have the Spanish Government shaking in their shoes and saying, "We are certainly going to agree to change that in the IGC."
The Labour party is determined to address the issue of quota hopping.

Mr. Mans: How?

Dr. Strang: I have explained that we could have tackled the issue during the 1992 review. That was not done. If the Labour party comes to power, it will be before the completion of the intergovernmental conference, and Ministers know that. Clearly, an incoming Labour Government could—I put it no stronger than that—pick up the hand. I was simply saying to the House and the country that we shall attach a high priority to the quota hopping issue. As the Foreign Secretary stated yesterday and the Prime Minister mentioned again today, there is no question that we can go on with quota hopping on such a scale.
Conservative Members have made great play of the fact that the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight. They must be living in some dream world. The Minister knows perfectly well from the reception that he and his predecessors have received when they have visited fishing ports that no amount of media management will alter the fact that the Government's record on fisheries policy is one of failure. Seventeen years of successive Conservative Governments have meant 17 years of failure in fisheries policy. The Opposition amendment is designed to advance the case of the fishing industry and fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to support it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I should tell the House that 13 hon. Members wish to speak in the remaining two and a half hours or so. May we have modest-length speeches?

Mr. David Harris: As always, I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I must confess that I was a little baffled at the beginning of his speech but even more so by the end. I cannot understand why, since they agree precisely with what the Government are doing—at the moment at any rate—the Opposition are forcing a Division. I know that doing so is politics, to which I shall return. Not once during his speech did the hon. Gentleman give a reason for dividing the House on the motion before it. Trying to defeat the Government in such a way is purely opportunistic politics, and I hope that any Conservative Member—or, indeed, any Member on any other Bench—who is thinking of voting with the Opposition will bear that in mind.
Much mention was made in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East of the Hague preference. Its origins of course lie in a previous Labour Government, which most people may have forgotten because it was a rather long time ago. A former Labour Minister—now Lord Owen—who then represented the west country constituency of Plymouth, Devonport, signed the Hague preference and made the arrangements. It was a political deal. That is the answer to the complaint by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the rather mysterious cut-off point at Flamborough head. Northern Britain basically meant Scotland, and Northern Ireland and the south-west were excluded.
Even the part of the world represented by the then Member for Devonport was excluded from the Hague preference because, had it been included, there would have been awful problems with France over Brittany. The Hague preference was a political stitch-up and we are still bearing its consequences, just as the fishing industry, especially in the south-west, has had to bear the consequences of so many other political stitch-ups over the years. I therefore very much welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on that subject. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland—perhaps this is more pertinent—will also very much welcome what was said.
The House will be relieved to know that this is almost certainly my last speech on fisheries matters. I have not missed a fisheries debate in the 13 years that I have had the honour to represent St. Ives. For reasons that are known to most hon. Members, I will not be standing at the next election. I shall miss these debates, which have altered considerably over the years. The times when a small group of us used to debate the issues and actually discuss which matters concerned our fishermen, rather than getting involved, as I am afraid that, inevitably, we have in this debate, in wider political considerations, seem like halcyon days. Before we lose sight of what is before the House, I hope that I may be permitted to comment briefly on some of the proposals that could affect fishermen in my constituency and the south-west constituencies of those represented ably by colleagues on both sides of the House. The fishing industry is very dear to hon. Members who represent the south-west. I am often accused by some of my hon. Friends of banging on about fishing, but the issue runs deep for anyone who has the great honour of representing a fisheries constituency.
Three areas of the Commission proposals that will be considered later this week give concern to the south-west. It must be said that the proposals before us tonight—


certainly those concerning the south-west, but generally, too—about which we have not heard much detail so far, are not quite as draconian as others have been over the years.
A number of issues naturally cause concern, the first of which relates to megrim. Western megrim stocks are basically a by-catch, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind. There is also the question of monkfish. Although, as I said, this year's proposals do not appear to be draconian, it must be remembered that they are on the back of massive cuts in the monkfish quota four years ago. I hope that my hon. Friend will heed the representations that I know have already been made to him on that point.
The third area of concern relates to a species which is often mentioned—certainly by south-west Members—in the House: channel cod. The complaint is that area VII b-k is huge. Yet the matter really concerns two distinct fish stocks. To lump them together in such a way distorts the fact that, in my part of the world—if I may call it that—there is often what appears to be an abundance of cod. Cod stocks should therefore be separated into more meaningful areas.
I return to what is undoubtedly the background to the debate: the common fisheries policy and the vexed question of quota hoppers. What I believe is common ground between every hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency, wherever they sit in the House, is the view that the CFP is a disaster. It must be torn up and rewritten; we must start again.
I have no doubt that there must be some form of common policy. That is perhaps not a popular thing to say, but it is a fact of life, and I would be deluding people if I said that there was some magic way in which we could just withdraw from the CFP without consequence. Yes, we could withdraw, but there would be consequences. I do not believe that we can withdraw unilaterally from the CFP if we are to stay in the European Union. People would be more honest if they put that clearly, especially to fishermen. It would be more honest to say, "All right, let us come out of the EU, if that is what you want."
As I said earlier, the trouble with the CFP, which was put in place before we entered it, has so often been that it has been built on trade-offs; its consequences so often involve trade-offs. So often, fishing has been at the worse end of a greater trade-off. I hope that for once fishing will benefit, and I believe the Government when they say that they are absolutely determined to tackle the problem of quota hopping.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his solid and sensible work over many years for the fishing industry and for the south-west. If I should be fortunate enough to return here, I shall greatly miss his contributions. He and I have stood side by side on the issue of quota hopping. Does he agree that the original relative stability agreement in 1983 could not stand beside quota hopping and that the two cannot be reconciled? Was it not therefore inevitable that the Single European Act would reduce that original agreement to nonsense?
Is not it also true that the economic implications of what the hon. Gentleman and I seek to do suggest that the only way to get round the problem is either to tear up the single market legislation or to draw down funds—some

of which come from our taxpayers' contributions—from Europe for our fishermen, so that they can buy quota from Brussels in the way that the Spanish have over many years?

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about me personally. I am not sure that what he said subsequently was entirely correct. I do not think that quota hopping can be regarded as part of the single market, because there is a great difference between a quota, which applies to a scarce resource, and some manufactured product, which should be the subject of the single market. I have never therefore regarded the problem as arising from the single market.
The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Factortame case, which has caused the real trouble in recent times, was perverse beyond belief. We cannot have a common fisheries policy that is based on national quota and yet allow companies and individuals from other member states to buy over boats and licences and get access to that national quota. That is happening to an alarming extent, as has been said, and more than 20 per cent. of our quota is now foreign owned. That is an intolerable position.
I gave the Government full marks when they introduced section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, but I wish that they had done it earlier, before Spain came in. Frankly, I wish that they had listened to me and to others who were fighting the scourge of quota hopping—in the old days, the problem was with flag of convenience vessels—as long as 16 years ago. That was the time to take action. Unfortunately, the action that they subsequently took was struck down by the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am an ingenue in this debate, because I do not represent a fishing constituency, but I have always worried about this quota hopping business, because is it not the case that individual fishermen are entitled to sell their quota on the open market? Would not preventing them from doing that be an interference in one form of freedom in order to achieve another?

Mr. Harris: That could be said, but one must consider the national interest. Many fishermen who are accused of selling their licence to a foreign interest do not know that that is what they are doing, as quite often the licence is sold through a middleman—an agent, for example—who may suggest that it is being sold to another fisherman from this country, whereas in fact it ends up in Spain. I know specific examples of that.
Let me tell my hon. Friends who are considering not supporting the Government tonight that on new year's day this year I was so worried about the plight of the fishing industry that I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, spelling out the difficulties that the industry faced, not least in the south-west. I rehearsed the problems that all hon. Members who represent fishing communities know only too well. I was especially worried about the entry of Spanish vessels into Irish waters on 1 January; that is why I wrote on that date. In fact, they have not materialised in any great numbers, but the threat is still there.
I said to the Prime Minister—my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my saying this—that he was the only person who could sort out the problems. I had a


meeting with him in February, as a result of which—I believe—he asked his policy unit at Downing street to consider fishing. That inquiry ran in parallel with the Ministry's investigation into the common fisheries policy.
Those who lead the industry—a great industry—were extremely pleased that, within days of that policy review in Downing street beginning, they were invited there, as were I and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) came with me to the meeting, and other hon. Members no doubt had some input. Partly as a result, we have witnessed the emergence of a fishing policy that, although not perfect—frankly, we can never have a perfect policy on fishing—goes a long way towards meeting the well-founded concerns of the fishing industry. In particular, it represents a genuine attempt to deal with quota hopping.
I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister's reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and the replies given over the past fortnight in the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and on European Legislation by the Foreign Secretary, by Sir Stephen Wall—the United Kingdom representative to the European Community—and by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).
All those replies confirmed that dealing with quota hopping would be a condition of our enabling progress to be made at the intergovernmental conference. In other words, we have a veto and we intend to use it. That is the assurance that the Government have given the fishing industry. For that reason alone, I have no hesitation in voting with the Government tonight. I urge my hon. Friends, who care about fishing even though some of them do not represent fishing communities, to vote with the Government tonight. As the House knows, I have never hesitated to vote against the Government on fishing matters—I have done it many times—when I thought that that was in the best interests of the fishing industry. This is not a night to vote against the Government.
I am reinforced in my opinion by what has been said by some of the leaders of the fishing industry over the weekend. I hope that they will forgive me for quoting them. They include my constituent, Mr. Michael Townsend, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. He is of course also chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. He was reported in today's edition of the Western Morning News as saying:
Fishing has always been cross-party. It's been a non-party issue and we want to keep it like that.
Mr. Jim Portus, the chief executive of the South-West Fish Producers Organisation, urged all Members of Parliament to support the Government.

Mr. Elliot Morley: He is a Tory.

Mr. Harris: Yes, there is nothing to be ashamed of—I am a Tory, too. The hon. Member knows me well and is aware that I have never hesitated to vote against my Government when I thought that that was in the best interests of the fishing industry.
Today's editorial in the Western Morning News, a paper which no one can accuse of being partisan or Tory, stated:
Don't sabotage the fishing industry.
The Government faces a knife-edge vote tonight when the EU Fisheries Policy is debated in the Commons. It is its first major test since losing its majority … The Opposition may see it as an opportunity to hijack the vote to bring about a crushing defeat for the Government.
But we would urge them not to do so, for the sake of the fishing industry.
For the sake of the fishing industry and for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Minister, I do not intend to vote against the Government tonight. Even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East could not find fault with the Government's policy—never mind the record, with which we all find fault—so he cannot urge his hon. Friends to vote against the Government.
I urge everyone on the Conservative Benches and perhaps even members of some of the minority opposition parties to back the Government so that at least my hon. Friend the Minister can attend the forthcoming meeting having won a majority vote and not, as last year, having suffered a defeat. A defeat would damage the fishing industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: First, I should like to echo the Minister's congratulations and tributes to the Royal National Mission for Deep Sea Fishermen. It has done a splendid job in the past century, and continues to do so, although it does not operate on the same scale as it did a decade ago.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I share a number of common features. It happens that neither of us will be here after the next general election. I do not want to turn the debate into a mutual admiration society, but more often than not, he and I have shared common ground on fishery matters, and we have frequently been in the same Lobby. I intend to part company with him tonight. Later in my speech, when I outline why we should or should not vote against the Government, we shall part company again. However, we have been adversaries and sometimes allies on the fishing industry, as on one or two other matters.
There is no doubt that losing the majority does wonders for the Government's approach to, for example, a fisheries debate, when they are in danger of being defeated. As I listened to the Minister, I began to wonder whether Christmas had come early. It was as if he had gone through a checklist of all the things about which the fishing industry is unhappy. For example, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has expressed concern about the Norway agreement on North sea haddock; problems connected with achieving participation in the enhanced north Norway cod agreement; and the Commission's proposals for west of Scotland haddock.
The Minister responded favourably to all those concerns, so much so that I was surprised by some of the reactions to the speech of our spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The Minister said that everything was either high priority, or near the top of the list for the negotiations. The truth is, however, that he did not say what was his bottom line. To continue in the Christmas vein, the Minister reminded me a bit of the fairy on the top of a Christmas tree. I am sorry


that he is not present, and I hope that he will not take my remarks amiss, but, like that fairy, he is very pretty and glittering, but has delivered nothing.
I do not see why the Opposition should take any lessons from the Conservatives about delivering policy, because the Conservatives are the Government. They have been the Government for so long that they have forgotten that they are the Government, so they do not seek to justify their policy. They seem to spend all their time attacking the Opposition. That is fair game and I do not object to that, except that when we attack them, the Government say that we are indulging in party politics. When they do it, however, they say that they are demonstrating sound common sense.
The House and the fishing industry must understand that there is a contradiction between deregulation and control of the fishing effort and control of the total allowable catch. One cannot opt for deregulation and at the same time expect control, nor can one expect such control to be exercised only on fishermen from other member states. Sometimes one almost thinks that that is what the industry is asking for. The industry understands that, and so must the Government.
That contradiction is at the heart of the common fisheries policy, which is regarded as part of the single market. It is impossible to argue that by analogy, so it is not possible to rebut the strong views of the Fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino, who says that it is a Common Market and that everyone can go into it. If that logic is followed, there is no common fisheries policy, except one which says that there is no control on effort or on who can catch the fish; instead, we simply have a total free-for-all. That means that everyone would keep on fishing until there were no fish left. If the North sea was regarded as simply part of the single market, that would be the inevitable conclusion, according to Mrs. Bonino. She cannot have it both ways.
We must opt for quotas and total allowable catches. I know of no one in the House or within the industry who disagrees with the proposition that there must be such controls. No one believes that, not even those who think that we should withdraw from the common fisheries policy, tear it up and start again. They argue for that not because they are in favour of a free-for-all, but because they believe that they can introduce stronger controls based on national interest.
The Fisheries Commissioner must cast aside the idea that the common fisheries policy is part of the single market. Those in the fishing industry must accept that if we are to have controls and regulations, and although the price may be great in some instances, we cannot afford to reject out of hand the possibility of satellite surveillance. If that proves to be the best way to check the direction of vessels and which waters they are or are not supposed to be in, I do not think that we can reject such a proposal. The industry must accept that it may have to swallow some unpalatable pills, whose consequences are necessary in the long run. I therefore do not reject satellite surveillance proposals.
I am glad that we have a full day for the debate. Our common objective in the past 17 years and beyond has been stability for the present and the future—without that, there can be no future planning. We want to know what is happening and we do not want quotas and TACs to change year on year, up and down like a yo-yo. We want certainty.
As the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Front-Bench spokesmen have said, the key issue is quota hopping. I was shadow transport spokesman when the first attempt was made to put the matter right. On behalf of the Opposition, I said that we would give the Government fair wind and would not frustrate the legislation. That action might be used against me tonight—it always is. In Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that he did not believe that the Government were going the right way about it. We did not, however, try to stop the legislation. I do not blame the Government for getting it wrong, because they were attempting to get it right. That example shows that there has often been a bipartisan approach to the issue.
The Government's position is that the issue will be resolved at the intergovernmental conference. I would feel slightly happier if fishing was the only matter at issue at the ICC, but there are other matters to be discussed. We know of at least one other matter, and I suspect that the Prime Minister has a list as long as one's arm of the things that he wants changed. The trouble is that we have heard all this before. The Government talk tough, but they usually fail to deliver.
I do not want to extend the debate—clearly, it would be out of order if I did—but the Government have not delivered on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Prime Minister came back from Florence and said that, as a result of the Florence agreement, the ban on beef exports would be lifted by the end of November or the beginning of December. This afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food changed his mind and said that he would do things that he had ruled out a couple of months before, but there is still no end to the beef ban. Nobody knows when the ban will be lifted.
We remember also the Madrid conference where, again, there was a dispute during attempts to reach agreement among the Heads of State. At Madrid, the Spanish Prime Minister said to our Prime Minister, "I will not sign up unless Spanish vessels are given early access to British waters." Our Prime Minister said, "Okay. Fine. We agree." He gave way, and that, unfortunately, has been the history—fishing has always been a bargaining counter in almost every conference or agreement. Fishing always loses out. The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to the Hague preference as a stitch-up, but what is a prudent agreement and what is a stitch-up probably depends on the side of the House on which one sits. One thing about which I am certain is that fishing has always lost out, and neither main party has been able to ensure that that is not the case when in power.
One of the reasons why we cannot trust the Government is that they always have to say how well they have done. For example, on the working time directive, Ministers said that we had a great opt-out and were making changes. They were satisfied that the working time directive did not apply to us—they had won the battle. But what happened? They lost the battle, and they are now bleating about it.
One of our problems is that the political arguments do not help. I saw on the BBC teletext service today—a slightly different story was told in the House, I admit—that the Prime Minister had come to a cosy deal with


the Ulster Unionists about the Northern Ireland fishing industry. As a concession to the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament—

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Just hear me out. The Prime Minister came to a deal, because he needed the votes of Ulster Unionist Members to avoid defeat. I do not know whether there is a shred of truth in that story, and if there is, I do not blame the Ulster Unionist Members, who are using their position to get the best they can for their industry. But that is not the right way to run fishing policy. Bargaining with a little bit here and a little bit there is not the answer. The Government might see a Conservative Member who may vote against them tonight and offer to take care of the problem in his constituency. Sadly, that is not the way to go about it.
The trouble is that all this talk about the intergovernmental conference is simply hot air, because the Prime Minister knows only too well that he will not be at the next IGC. After the election, the right hon. Gentleman might not even be the Leader of the Opposition. He might well be sitting where the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) currently sits, and the hon. Gentleman might well be the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Nicholls: This is a serious debate.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, it is a serious debate. The Prime Minister cares about only one thing—survival. He is treating the House of Commons as if it were a hospice for the terminally ill—he is trying to dull the pain and alleviate distress until the inevitable end comes.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman suggested some time ago that he believed the fairy tales put about by the media. He should understand by now that as every other Opposition Member is known always to vote against the Government almost regardless of the issue, the Ulster Unionists are the only Members about whom the media can speculate. Therefore, speculation is rife, and very often wrong. I can tell him that, on this occasion, the view expressed by the media about a cosy deal is totally without foundation.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to put that on the record. I said that I was not concerned one way or the other whether there was a shred of truth in the story. We are all honourable Members in this place, and I take his word that no cosy deal has been done. It may be that a cosy deal was offered, but we shall leave that aside.
The one fortunate thing is that the end of this Government is not far away—it is four to five months away. It will then be for my right hon. and hon. Friends to take up the cudgels to obtain changes to the CFP, to give it stability and justice. I hope that whoever follows the hon. Member for St. Ives and me into this House will be as strong in their defence of the fishing industry as he has been. For that reason, I shall be voting against the Government. I want to bring them down as soon as possible, and I hope that we can do so.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) berated the Government in somewhat quieter tones than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I have great respect for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, especially for his views on agricultural policy, which we seem almost to share. I take it that he was as responsible as anyone for drafting the Labour amendment. I can think of only one word to describe the amendment, and I fear that it may be out of order. I can think of no more elegant phraseology than that word, which is "humbug".
The hon Member for Edinburgh, East berated with fury what has gone on for the past 17 years, but has he forgotten what he was doing in 1976? In that year, Community law was laid down in a regulation governing the future direction of the CFP. At the heart of that policy was the principle of equal access, so that we in this country and our fishermen had no more right to the waters that had previously been ours than any of the other member states. From that has stemmed all the troubles that we have with the CFP.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will know that in 1976 the then Labour Government had a veto, which they did not exercise. If only they had exercised that veto and prevented the 1976 regulation from coming about, we would not have had any of the consequences for the past 17 years, about which he has complained. But that is not what he did, nor what that Government did. I think that I am right in saying that he was in an office that had some influence over those matters.
I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has a miserable job—it is an impossible job. He knows, as do all of us with an interest in any part of the fishing industry, that we could once again have a fishing industry as large and as prosperous as it was many years ago. But we cannot have that prosperity again—it is not possible—as long as we do not have the same rights to waters as those enjoyed by any self-governing nation state of the world. That is the truth of the matter.
As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said many times before, we have lost that right of control and until we regain it, we shall never have an effective conservation policy and we shall never restore our fishing stocks. Furthermore, we shall never be able to deal with industrial fishing, which has now become an evil because it sweeps up millions of undersized fish which, in times past, would have been left in the sea to mature so as to be caught at a later stage when they were worth eating.
In the North sea, the numbers of five important species are now so dangerously low that they are nearing the point of irreversible decline. Those are herring, mackerel, cod, plaice and sole—five species that have been on the plates of all hon. Members many times. They are popular species and we should sustain those resources permanently, in large quantities, as they were sustained in the past. In the North sea, stocks have now fallen so low that we might soon reach an irreversible position. I hope that the Minister is aware of that problem and knows that it is deeply serious.
All of us who have any part of the fishing industry in our constituencies know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has travelled up and down the country explaining the Government's difficulties and their policies. He has


been listening and learning and many fishermen appreciate what he has been trying to do. However, I wish that he would not use the term "non-negotiable" in respect of our six to 12-mile limit. That term is causing some anger among many fishermen because, if one says that those fishing rights are non-negotiable, it suggests that their ownership is ours, that we have a right to them and that we will not concede that right. The fact is that we conceded those rights long ago, when we entered the European Community. Those waters are as much Community waters as those beyond the 12-mile limit.
Let me underline that point. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is a lawyer, were my landlord who had given me a 10-year lease, and I were to go round telling my neighbours that I would continue to have possession and that my rights were non-negotiable, as a lawyer and a landlord, my hon. Friend would tell me that I was deceiving myself and my neighbours. I therefore urge him to abandon the term "non-negotiable". I know what he means, but his use of a phrase that fishermen resent is not doing him any good.
Fishermen feel that over the years they have been deceived, I regret to say, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Liberal Democrats have probably been the worst offenders and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists have been no better. I have to admit that the Ulster Unionists on both sides of the House have probably behaved in the most frank and honest manner in respect of the fishing industry.
The time has now come for us to be frank with the fishing industry and to say that our hands are tied and that there is a limit to what we can do. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has said about the common fisheries policy. He has denounced it with great charm and great firmness, but the only real answer is to reassert ourselves. To concede that we should have a common fisheries policy of any kind is unwise and unnecessary. If we are to have a successful Community that is to enlarge to include 25, 30 or more countries, we have to forget about having a common fisheries policy. It would be impossible and absurd to allow countries such as Estonia and Latvia, which have their own fishing fleets, to have equal access with ours.
As part of any enlargement, we have to say that every member state should have its own fishing policy. Let us act as if we were a self-governing nation state, with control of our own waters, so that we can have a prosperous fishing industry in future.

Mr. James Wallace: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). He attacked my party and other Opposition parties, but it is fair to say that, after fisheries debates in recent years, we have found ourselves in the Lobby in support of the fishing industry more often than have Conservative Members. When he raises the red herring of access to waters, he must know that the derogation has been challenged in the courts by the Spaniards and that that case failed.
New members of the Community are generally excluded from waters that they have not traditionally fished and there is no reason to suspect that Estonia will be treated any more favourably, unless it gives us a major concession that blinds the Minister of the day. That is

unlikely. To put up such Aunt Sallies does not help, because it increases uncertainty within the industry. Mrs. Bonino has indicated that there is no likelihood of the derogation on the six to 12-mile limit being challenged in the 2002 review.
I welcome the widespread attention being given to our annual fisheries debate and I am grateful to the Government's business managers for allowing it additional time. The Minister of State's tour of fishing ports around the country, trying to woo hon. Members, was interesting. My hon. Friends and I were speculating about how he would try to woo the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), but he was not prepared to compromise on a unilateral renunciation of the common fisheries policy. We look forward with interest to seeing whether enough has been said this evening to persuade the hon. Member for Ludlow.
Despite all the political attention focused on the vote at the end of the debate, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are considering the details of a regulation that will have a considerable impact in the forthcoming year on the lives and the livelihoods of fishermen and on the communities to which they belong, from Shetland to Cornwall. Against that background, I hope that the Minister will respond to several pertinent questions, many of which have already been raised and to some of which the Minister has already referred. When he winds up, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will be able to take them on.
Traditionally, much of the December debate focuses on the total allowable catches—or TACs—for the next year. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I have taken part in many of these debates over the years. We both first spoke in December 1983 and at that time, as in subsequent years, the Minister's remit at the Fisheries Council was that he should unequivocally negotiate the best deal for our fishermen. Of course, when TACs were negotiated at Fisheries Councils in the past, most of them were taken up by British fishermen. The position is different in respect of the TACs to be negotiated at this week's Fisheries Council: 44 per cent. of the plaice quota, 46 per cent. of the hake quota, 20 per cent. of the sole quota, and 29 per cent. of the anglers quota—all high-value species—will be fished by non-British fishermen. That is a result of the quota hopping that has been the subject of much of the discussion so far and to which I shall return.
Representations from fishing organisations have highlighted many of their concerns and, although I would agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives that the list is not quite as long as in some years, the points they raise are important. It is generally felt that the pelagic settlement is reasonably satisfactory, but disappointment is expressed at the fact that, despite the industry having taken a 50 per cent. cut in the TAC for herring earlier this year, the cut in sprats is only half that amount. Given that sprat fishing takes up a number of juvenile herring, that issue should be re-examined.
The Minister may wish to say something about the deal that was struck at the weekend on Atlanto-Scandian herring, which is welcomed by the industry. The EU amount is less in the forthcoming year, but it is thought that, given that fishermen will be allowed to fish some of it in Norwegian and Faroese waters and land in Norway, it has considerable value. It would be helpful if the Minister


would say that there will be no impediment to British vessels starting fishing that on 1 January 1997, so that they can start establishing a track record for what may be a very important fishery for the future.
From a Scots perspective, with regard to the white fish species, there is major concern about the significant cut in the TAC for west of Scotland haddock, as the Minister of State acknowledged in response to a question by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It is believed that the scientific evidence might justify a status quo for haddock; I hope, especially as it is a precautionary TAC, that Ministers will focus their minds on that in the forthcoming Council meeting.
Similar consideration applies to North sea haddock, where the TAC cut comes in the wake of a significant cut in the cod quota. Many people accept the need for tougher measures with regard to cod, to conserve a seriously depleted stock, but it does not follow that there should be the same cut for haddock, especially as it is possible to fish haddock clean of cod. I hope that North sea haddock will be given special attention.
There is scepticism about the precautionary TAC for west of Scotland saithe, a problem which might be better resolved by uplifting the TAC than by invoking the Hague preference, which has been a subject of some discussion.
On the subject of cod, there are obvious difficulties in fishing in the North sea and west of Scotland. The Minister will confirm that there is an increase in the cod available in north Norway for Community vessels. I shall not go into individual constituency cases now, but I hope that the Minister will accept that there is an opportunity for vessels from the Scottish fleet to go to north Norway, and that any representations that he receives on that will receive sympathetic consideration.
From the perspective south of the border, I know that the Minister is aware that on North Sea plaice, it is feared that the European Union agreement with Norway produced a situation where a swift recovery of stocks might lead to a dislocation in the industry, whereas a slower recovery, by retaining the status quo at 81,000 tonnes, would be helpful in maintaining the well-being of those who have been fishing plaice in the North sea.
A similar view is taken on the disproportionate cut in North Sea sole quota. I understand that, at last year's Council, there was direct negotiation with Norway on plaice. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, if it comes to it, he will be prepared to do that again.
The industry believes that, unlike other areas, the Irish sea boasts stable stocks of cod, and that a higher TAC there, thus avoiding Hague preference, would be better for English and Ulster fishermen.
We were told by the Minister of State that the industry had generally signed up to a review of the Hague preference. I understand that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation was told about the proposal at a meeting that the Minister of State came into today and that some things were said about it, but it certainly could not be thought that the federation had signed up to it.
I say as constructively as I can that, obviously, the issue is sensitive. In fisheries debates we have often appealed to Ministers to invoke the Hague preference, which has brought benefits over the years. It does not help if people

feel that they have been bounced into a position that they have not. I hope that a greater sensitivity on that issue will be shown, perhaps even by the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office when he replies to the debate.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State is especially concerned about salmon farming, which is a matter for the Council. He knows, as we all do, that the Government eventually agreed to apply to the Commission for a minimum import price. That has not been forthcoming. Apparently, Mrs. Bonino gave the Minister short shrift when he went on a special errand to try to get it. Is it possible for the Council to take the matter into its hands? It is intolerable that some of the most efficient salmon farmers in Scotland—in Shetland, my constituency—are obliged to sell their product at below production cost. As the Minister knows, that is unsustainable. An emergency response is needed, and we very much hope that he can make progress on that.
I said that in the past, and in relation to the current round, fishermen have expressed scepticism about some of the TACs that have been set. People might argue that the fishermen would say that because they want to fish more, but self-evidently it is not in the interests of the fishing industry to kill off the stocks on which it and future generations will depend. We should not dismiss the experience and expertise that skippers can contribute to the inexact science of stock assessments.

Mr. Salmond: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had left the subject of salmon farming. Is he aware that, at the weekend, a former Commissioner, a Mr. Bruce Milian, attributed the failure of the Scottish junior Minister to achieve satisfactory results to ministerial inexperience? Regardless of whether it was inexperience, it was certainly a very belated effort.

Mr. Wallace: The House well knows that we argued for some time before the Cabinet would accept the position. I am not sure that it helps the Minister in his attempt to win something for us at the weekend if we all denounce him as being inexperienced. I know that the Minister and the Scottish Office have taken a very positive approach to that. Our complaint lay with other Departments. Now that, at long last, the Government have got a line on that, we wish the Minister well and hope that he can negotiate something positive for the salmon farming industry at the end of the week.
I was saying that, in proposing radical reform of the common fisheries policy, Liberal Democrats recommend the decentralisation of management, with the involvement of skippers and fisheries scientists. That would lead to better informed decision making, and decisions to which people have contributed are more likely to command their confidence and active co-operation.
What the Minister of State said today, repeating almost verbatim one of the points that he made in the 10-point plan that he unveiled in Plymouth, gives us cause for hope that that approach—a much more regional dimension, local management of fisheries—will gain momentum. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said, Liberal Democrats have called for that in many debates. Sometimes Ministers have tried to rubbish us, but we will always welcome the sinner that repents. We only regret the fact that it has taken 17 years and a minority Government to bring about their repentance, but we encourage them in developing that line of thinking.
That was one of the recommendations of the common fisheries policy review group, in which my constituent, Mr. John Goodlad, played a constructive and distinguished part. When do the Government intend to respond formally to the 40 or more recommendations of the review group? The Minister said that that would happen in the near future, but following such a high-quality, constructive report, we want a better idea of the timetable for a response and implementation.
I agreed with many of the report's conclusions, including the non-viability of renouncing the common fisheries policy unilaterally and the need to boost decommissioning, to consider a scrap and build policy and to consider other institutional arrangements, including regionalism.
There are immediate issues to be dealt with, including the position on multi-annual guidance programme IV and flags of convenience. As we have heard time and again tonight, the two are linked, not solely because of the linkage that the Government have stated, but because it is unreasonable to set a further MAGP requirement for Britain when we are purporting to negotiate the removal from the fisheries register of 20 per cent. of the fleet flying the Union flag as a matter of convenience.
Do the Government intend to make any negotiations on quota hopping retrospective? The Government have said that they have taken the initiative by seeking a solution to the problem in the IGC, but what do they mean by a solution? Will it apply to future transfers of licences or will there be a retrospective element?
What is being done to pursue the initiative? The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), in an intervention, suggested that the reference to that important aspect of our negotiations on the IGC had been dropped from the Irish proposals and relegated to an appendix. I understand that there was a four-line reference to it on page 134 under the heading, "Part B—Other Issues". I am not sure that that is the type of profile that has been presented to us in the House. What profile are Ministers seeking for that? How often have member state capitals been visited by Ministers or by departmental senior officials to promote the ideas? I do not expect the Minister to show us his full negotiating hand, but we would like to be reassured that there is some tangible evidence of progress. His winding-up speech will give the Minister an opportunity to transmit such a message, not just to the House but to the fishing industry.
Related to that is a point that I raised in an intervention. What precisely is the Government's attitude to MAGP IV? Last June, the Minister was talking about assembling a blocking minority. In October, in a letter to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Prime Minister said:
we have made it clear that we will not implement further compulsory cuts in the UK fleet while the quota hopping issue remains unresolved".
The Minister of State gave a complex reply to that question, replying further to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that the Government were not contemplating such action. We want to know whether this is a question of trying to block the provision, or whether it is a question of allowing an agreement to be reached by the other member states which we will not implement. It is important for that to be clarified. Those issues—quota-hopping and capacity reduction—have crept up on the Government because of their neglect in the past.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Mr. Harris) said that his reason for voting for the Government tonight was the response that he had received from the Prime Minister to a letter that he had sent him on 1 January earlier this year. The response that I have had is my reason for voting against the Government. Where were they for 17 years, if it is only now that they have woken up and have what the hon. Gentleman described as a fisheries policy?
It is not as if the Government were not warned. At the time when pressure stock licences were introduced, some of us argued that, rather than being sold on, they should revert to a pool and perhaps be reallocated, thus ensuring that the remoter fishing communities of our country would not lose out through the licences' being drawn away to—as many of us thought—other parts of the United Kingdom, or, as has in fact happened, to other countries. The monetary ethic of Thatcherism prevailed, however. In time, many skippers found that the best offers came from foreign vessel owners. Nothing was done about the problem during our presidency in 1992, and it remains today.
Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, many Opposition Members and some exceptional Conservative Members—the hon. Member for St Ives was one, and we heard especially distinguished contributions from the late Alick Buchanan-Smith—argued for a well-funded decommissioning scheme, but too little was done too late. As a result, as other European Union countries, notably Spain, now receive grants to modernise their fleet, our fleet, unaided, grows older. That is due either to wilful neglect or to a cavalier disregard for the industry on which so many livelihoods depend, both at sea and on shore, in communities where alternative employment can be scarce.
We have heard much rhetoric, but the details of implementation have been scanty. The amendment that has been selected—like the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me—calls the Government to account for their stewardship of fisheries policies over the past 17 years. Regrettably, it has been a record of neglect and failure, and we will vote against the Government tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must point out that nine hon. Members wish to speak in the 97 minutes that are available before the winding-up speeches. I hope that, with a bit of co-operation, they will all be able to do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The fishing industry in Northern Ireland continues to suffer one blow after another as a result of policies dictated by the common fisheries policy in Brussels.
Let me remind the House of the vital importance of the fishing industry to Northern Ireland's economy. More than 2,000 people are employed in the industry, with another 1,200 actively engaged on fishing trawlers. The entire industry is worth more than £20 million per year to the Northern Ireland economy. In recent years, however, the industry has suffered one major crisis after another. Each year, fishermen's livelihoods are put in jeopardy as a result of annual cuts in the fishing quotas in the Irish sea, and this year is no exception.
Once again, we face the prospect of Irish sea fishing quotas' being reduced from a level that is already intolerable. Since 1990, the total allowable catch in the Irish sea has been reduced by 40 per cent. We are saying that we cannot take any more reductions: if the TAC is reduced any further, there will be no fleet left. Those are the stern, hard facts that the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces. This year, it is proposed that the cod quota should remain at 6,200 tonnes, and the sole quota at 1,000 tonnes. Whiting, however, is down 30 per cent. from 9,000 to 6,400 tonnes, and plaice from 2,450 to 1,800. The herring catch has been restricted to 7,000 tonnes.
Along with the leader of the SDLP—who, like me, happens to be a Member of the European Parliament—and accompanied by the chairmen of Mourne, Newtownards and Down councils and their staff and councillors and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I was part of a delegation that met the top brass of the fishing commission. We were amazed at its ignorance of what was happening in the Irish sea. Its members told us that fish were scarce, saying, "We are only doing this to give you some industry." They said that conservation must take place.
Before we went there, the commission told the fishermen that they could not have any more haddock out of the sea—that they were very scarce. Well, there are more haddock in the Irish sea tonight than there have been since Noah's Ark floated on the waters. The commission's leading expert admitted something to is: he said, "When I was told that there were haddock in the Irish sea and that they were spawning, I did not believe it, but I went on my own and discovered that the fishermen were right." Why cannot those fishermen take the haddock out of the sea? That expert also confirmed something about herring. It is more than ever possible to fish for herring in the Irish sea—and not red herring.
We were told that nephrops—or prawns, as they are commonly called—were ample and abundant; yet the proposal is to keep the fishermen from fishing for them. What sort of scheme is this so-called common fisheries policy? That is what the fishermen who are sitting in the Strangers Gallery are asking, and rightly so. Why can they not fish for the fish that are plentiful? We look to the Government to do something.
There has been talk of the Hague preference. In 1992, a Minister promised in the House of Lords that the Government were determined to do something about the Hague preference in regard to the Irish sea. What did they do? They did nothing. Meanwhile, our fishermen must watch the spectacle of fishermen from the Republic—when the Republic takes up its option—coming into their fishing grounds, and fishing freely where our men are not allowed to fish for their own fish. That must cease.
I understand the worry about the Hague preference expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). In certain cases, it gave precedence to extra fish for British fishermen, but in the Irish sea we have a problem different from problems anywhere else. The Government must face up to that problem, and a satisfactory result must be found.
The Irish Republic has a very liberal quota and from its point of view it is right to say that there are not many fish in the Irish sea. The fewer fish that it says there are

the better a quota it will have and the more it can ask for the Hague preference to be brought into play. I can understand Irish Ministers saying, "We have to be careful about the Irish sea or we shall take everything out of it." It suits their policy to say that.
Where there are fish in abundance people should be allowed to catch them. Northern Ireland fishermen are told, "Your catch has been reduced by 40 per cent. Now cut it again by 30 per cent. to give a total cut of 70 per cent." Next year, they will suggest that we cut it by another 10 per cent. Day after day our fishing industry is being decimated. I pity Northern Ireland Members who have fishing interests in their constituencies. We come here and speak about the industry and travel to Brussels but evidently there are to be no changes.
The Government should look at the Lassen report although, of course, it has been overtaken by other matters. It suggested reducing our fleet by another 40 per cent. It might as well state that we should give up the industry altogether. Now it has come up with another view of segmentation of the fleet, and that would be disastrous. Fishermen tell me that, because of its capacity, it would be impossible to do that with the Northern Ireland fleet.
Our prawn fisheries have also been attacked because it is said that prawns are scarce. But even the scientists say that there are plenty of prawns and Lassen is one of Europe's top officials. There is grave concern about the technical conservation measures that are being proposed by the Commission. They include measures about the size of the nets, the size of fish that can be landed and the areas in which fish can be caught.
In the Irish sea the proposals take no account of the regional diversities of home waters. For example, prawns are one of the most important stocks for Ulster fishermen, but the Commission proposes to increase the minimum landing size from 70 mm to 105 mm overnight. There is no justification for that and scientists are arguing about it. Even the Department's scientists advise us that if this measure is introduced in the Irish sea we would have to forget about 60 per cent. of all the prawns that are currently fished: 60 per cent. would be lost. What is left to fishermen who are faced with such percentages?The Government must go to Europe and save us from the discrimination that seems to be applied to Northern Ireland's fishermen. There is a vendetta to destroy the Province's entire fishing fleet. It is a matter of life and death.
We hear much about decommissioning, but what do Northern Ireland fishermen do when their vessels have been decommissioned? They have nowhere to go. Are we to say to those people, "Although there are plenty of fish you must decommission your boat"? A fishermen told me, "I thought that it was best for me to decommission, and I did. I did my best to start a company with the money but I had many problems and I was unable to run a viable company. I had to buy another vessel to eke out some sort of living in what I was brought up to do."
The Government must adopt a vigorous stance in Europe. This is a fight for the existence of our fleet. It is a scandal that other member states, notably the Spanish, are effectively exporting their overcapacity problem to the United Kingdom by being allowed to operate vessels under the British flag and fish against our quotas. Government commitments on that issue must be


honoured. No longer should our fishing industry have to work under the regime of a European fishing policy that is crushing to death the industry in Northern Ireland.
In 1992 the European Commission report entitled "Regional, Socio-economic Studies in the Fisheries Sectors" stated that Northern Ireland was the one area where fishing should be maintained as a priority because of unemployment. But what has happened? Many people in Northern Ireland wonder why the European Union strives to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in Northern Ireland—and of course that money is welcome—while adopting measures under the common fisheries policy which have the inevitable effect of making redundant people who are active in one of Ulster's most important industries.
The Government must recognise the tragic situation of fishing in Northern Ireland. They must not give us words: they must return from Europe having taken action that we can see.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister started by painting a rather glowing picture of the industry. He said that it was prosperous, well-invested and coming along well under his ministrations. But the reality is rather different. The industry is in severe financial difficulties. It is not making enough to invest and finds it difficult even to keep going. Many people have to continue to fish to maintain a return on the borrowing with which they are lumbered. That is the real state of the industry and it is why British licences have been sold to quota hoppers.
I want to smash the television screen every time I see a European Commission official saying that British fishermen have sold licences to Spanish fishermen. They did that because they were in debt and were not making enough money. The Spanish were able to buy those licences because they had reached their multi-annual guidance targets by reflagging many of their vessels as British and therefore got access to European funds. That brought them within the target and opened the route to European money, but by the same token our fishermen were above their target and did not have access to European money and were forced to sell their vessels. It is a vicious circle.
The industry is not as prosperous as the Minister says. It faces threats and uncertainties and a reluctance by financial institutions to lend it money. That is one of the real problems. There is no confidence in the future because of constant threats of massive shutdowns and cuts in the British fleet, which has not had adequate backing from the Government, and because the common fisheries policy is not only wrong, as several Ministers have said, but is a conservation disaster.
The CAP is so disastrous that I am surprised that it has not been endorsed by the Spice Girls because it is on the same level as the disaster that the Government are achieving. The Commissioner is disastrous. Commissioner Bonino changes her mind so often that it seems from reading the press releases that there is a different Commissioner every month. She goes in for frequent changes of policy. She said at the beginning that she did not want the portfolio and did not understand it. She has demonstrated that at some length over the years.
The policy puts fishermen in competition with each other so that the natural character of fishermen to be hunters is not alleviated by any tendency to make them

harvesters and get them to work together. They are compelled to compete, largely through the quota system and although quotas are an acceptable way to divide catches, they are disastrous when they are used for management purposes. They lead inevitably to discards. Fish caught over quota or fish that are outside quota are just dumped back in the sea—dead. As the quotas come down, the discards go up. The system forces fishermen into either discarding fish on an increasing scale or into illegalities.
The system is still not adequately policed because the control at ports of landing in Europe is totally inadequate. They do not care about British quotas. Why should they bother to enforce them? Vessels, particularly the quota hoppers, land not here, but in Europe, where they are not adequately policed.
Some quota hoppers of course come here to collect benefit, not to land fish. We cannot have a proper policy unless we have effective European policing. The policy goes for broad, lowest common denominator measures that will not work, such as the proposed increase in the mesh size to 110 mm. That is too big to provide an economic future for fishing.
I find it appalling that the industry's proposals for conservation—I refer in particular to those from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in 1993—have never yet had a considered reply. They are the path of the future. They include technical and national measures and greater control for the coastal state. The NFFO put them to the Government, but there was no answer. Without consulting the industry, the Government made their own proposals to the European Commission, which came back with appalling conservation programmes that would never have worked.
The Commission insisted, for instance, on dealing with the Spanish catching and landing of small fish by reducing minimum landing sizes. It tried to deal with the discards problem by providing that discards did not have to be dumped overboard immediately, but could be carried until the end of the voyage, which we know means outside British waters, where the fish would almost certainly be landed before they were required to be dumped.
The only sensible proposals on conservation have come from the NFFO. It has proposed square mesh panels. The Commission has made that messy by insisting that such panels should be the same size as diamond mesh panels, which is impracticable. The NFFO has proposed a ban on industrial fishing, which we need immediately, and a system of sustainable fishing, which is to be achieved partly by more selective fishing, which is right in itself, but partly by technical conservation measures under the management of the coastal state.
That is the future. We need to devolve power down, under what might be called subsidiarity in other mouths, from Brussels and from the Commission to management by the coastal state and, within that, to regional management systems that involve people fishing in the region. In other words, we need systems that empower, involve and bring fishermen into consultation with scientists because there is far too little of that. The fishermen feel that they are being totally ignored and that their practical knowledge has been rejected. The systems should empower them to manage the system.
The Minister has moved a little way by talking of regional measures, but those are consultative proposals. We need regional management structures that involve


fishermen in their own fate to make them stakeholders in their industry and to give them responsibility for feeling that it is their fish, so ensuring that they work together for the common purpose.
All that has been proposed by the NFFO and by North East Lincolnshire council. We shall put those proposals to the Minister. That is the way that the industry needs to go for power to be handed down from Brussels and for the producer organisations not only to manage their quotas, but to stop the transfer of licences outside their region. We have had a steady drain of Grimsby quotas to Scotland.
Under pressure from the House, the Minister has moved some way in our direction. I approve of his proposals on quota hoppers. I ask him not to agree to multi-annual guidance programme IV until quota hoppers are taken out of the equation. If he does agree to cuts in effort, they must be made after quota hoppers have been taken out of the equation because 20 per cent. of our fleet is made up of quota hoppers. The reduction in effort that will be demanded of us under MAGP IV is about 20 per cent. Take out the quota hoppers and we are bang on target and we have access to European funding. That is the way to go. The Minister must therefore resist MAGP IV until quota hoppers are taken out of the equation.
I hope that the Minister will resist too the barmy proposals—I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who spoke earlier—on satellite monitoring because they will be divisive in the fleet in relation to vessels over 24 m. The proposals will be expensive and who pays? As usual in Britain, the fishermen will be asked to pay. The proposals will provide no guide to what fishermen are doing. If a boat is sat there with either its satellite transmitter or engine broken, it is committing an illegality under the system. It reduces other methods of control in favour of this broad brush approach that will not work.
I am not as critical of the Minister this year as I have been in previous years. He has helped and moved a considerable way in the direction of sense, particularly on quota hoppers, but also in considering regional structures and in giving a greater role to the coastal state. Having pushed him this far, we should vote against him to push him further because, obviously, nothing works on the Government as effectively as a lost vote, which produces the sort of help and support that they have denied to the industry.
The basic problem in the Government's approach has been that fishing has been hit by a double whammy. It has had a battering from Europe by a common fisheries policy that is unworkable, unsuitable and damaging to our industry. That has been compounded by the withholding of Government help, which has been provided to every other competing industry in Europe, but not to ours. That is the double whammy. The industry has been hit both ways.
At last the Minister has begun to do something about Europe. We shall encourage him to do something about the financing of the industry so that we can have a genuine scrap-and-build programme, and a genuine plan for fishing to restore confidence, for modernisation of our fishing boats and for giving confidence to institutions putting money into the industry so that financial

institutions respond. We will be able to get something done about the fishing industry's needs by voting against the Government tonight.

Mr. John Townend: As someone who has represented a fishing port for 17 years, I have seen the industry progressively damaged by the common fisheries policy. In retrospect, we must be honest: it is clear that the industry was betrayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who signed up to a treaty that forced the United Kingdom to surrender British fishing grounds to Europe. The industry was equally betrayed by the late Lord Wilson, who, at the time of the renegotiation, did not put the treaty right.
Fish inside our waters have ceased to be a national resource and today are a Community resource. It has always seemed strange to me that we pump up oil from the North sea and that oil is British oil, but the fish swimming around the oil rigs are European fish.
Leaving aside those objections, one must be fair. The CFP's aims were sensible. They were to improve conservation so that fish stocks would increase year on year and we would have a growing and prosperous fishing industry. No one, however, could believe that the CFP has achieved any of its aims. The British industry is in a parlous state. We have an aging fleet. There is a lack of investment and we are under continual pressure from the Community to reduce the size of our fleet and our quotas.
What are the specific failures? Far from stocks increasing every year because of the CFP so that we can increase quotas progressively every year, the stocks of many species are going down. Once more, there are proposals to reduce our quotas. The Community has failed to put into operation effective technical conservation measures. How can the policy be said to conserve when thousands upon thousands of tonnes of fish—the discards—are put back into the sea dead to pollute the oceans?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, there has been a complete failure to ban industrial fishing. There has been no attempt to deal with the growing problems of seals. The population is increasing dramatically in the North sea, with damage to salmon and to other fish stocks.
Above all, however, the policy discriminates against the UK. We provide much the largest portion of the waters of the northern seas of the European Union, yet we receive only about a quarter of the quota. May I give an example of how the restrictions affect Bridlington boats? Is it not nonsense that, in the British section of the North sea, we have virtually no quota for coley?
Coley is a large fish. Inevitably, when our fleet fishes from Bridlington for North sea cod and haddock, coley is also caught—but it has to be thrown back into the sea. For some reason, the French have a large coley quota in the North sea, in our waters, which they do not take up most years. Since I have been making this point, however, they decided to take up their quota last year. I do not know whether they are fiddling the figures.
European Union funds are given disproportionately to other European countries. I asked a parliamentary question on 21 November about how much of the fishing budget each country had received. Britain, with the largest


waters, received 25 million ecu, whereas Spain received 174 million ecu and Germany—which has far smaller waters than Britain—received virtually the same. France received 37 million ecu.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Townend: If I give way, I will not be able to keep to the requested 10 minutes.

Mr. Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he is saying. However, is he unaware that the figures that he has just given are the result of the Government's policy of not enabling the fishing industry to have access to the very funds that he mentioned?

Mr. Townend: That does not get away from the fact that the Spaniards have been subsidised by the European Union to build boats and they have also been given the finances to buy our licences and become quota hoppers. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
I support the Government's efforts to end quota hopping, but I only wish that the Opposition today had come out in full support of that policy and said that if they were elected at the next general election they would veto the intergovernmental conference if ii did not deal with the problem of quota hopping. However, they did not say that. They never make a commitment, they just imply that they will do something. I challenge the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to give a commitment to the industry that if the Labour party is elected it will veto the IGC unless it deals with the matter.
If we are opening up the whole issue, the Government should take the opportunity at the IGC to transfer British waters back to British control under the doctrine of subsidiarity. Once the fish in our waters are British again, we can have a sensible administration for the benefit of conservation and the British fishing industry, under a coastal management scheme.
We can but compare our situation with that of Norway, which is outside the common fisheries policy. My fishermen tell me that in the Norwegian section of the North sea the cod are much bigger and there are not the same problems with discards. The Norwegian industry is prosperous; there is no shortage of money for investment.
Despite all the commitments, if we do not take the opportunity now open to us my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston will be proved to be right. In the early years of the next century—2002, I believe—foreign boats will be fishing right up to our waters and there will be equal access for everyone. That will be disastrous.
I want to raise a few points that my fishermen feel are important and which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with when he replies to the debate. The fishermen believe it absolutely vital to maintain the fisheries industry safety group. They believe that there should be minimum landing sizes. They want an improvement in the stock assessment that forms the basis of quotas. For years, they have been based on the recommendations of scientists. If they had been right, we should have been able to look forward each year to

increasing stocks. The scientists have not been right and the fishermen's perspective of stock should not be ignored, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said.
The fishermen want us to do everything possible to ensure that there is no cut this year in the North sea cod quota. Some 80 to 90 per cent. of my fishermen depend on cod, so a cut would be devastating for the Bridlington industry. There is also no justification for keeping down the quota for North sea haddock, which is not under the same pressure as cod, merely because it is caught in the same fisheries.
Finally, we must deal with the problem of seals—despite the view of environmentalists. The seals are reproducing at an enormous rate and it is wrong to say that they do not affect the fishing industry. I have seen salmon, caught by my fishermen, with big bites taken out of them. Seals are like foxes—they do not eat salmon, they just take big bites out of them and ruin them for the fisherman.
Having dealt with the problems of Bridlington, I want to say a word on behalf of those British fishermen who are not represented in the House. I speak, of course, of the fishermen of Guernsey, whose waters are now being pillaged by the French. The French have been breaking agreements and have had their naval fishery protection vessels supporting their fishermen in the waters off Guernsey.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Our Navy has been present.

Mr. Townend: I am pleased to hear that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, as it is not the information that I have been given? If the Navy is there, I hope that it will take a higher profile. We should let the fishermen of Guernsey know that we are prepared to fight for their rights, just as we were prepared to fight for the rights of the Falkland islanders.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I want to place on record my appreciation to the Minister and to Baroness Denton, the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for fisheries, who visited my constituency a couple of weeks ago and discussed many problems with fishing organisations and fishermen.
I want at the outset to quote from a 1992 European Commission report, "Regional Socio-Economic Studies in the Fisheries sector". It said that in Northern Ireland 
there are currently very few alternate employment opportunities. Perhaps this is the one area where the maintenance of fish and related industry employment should be a priority.
In other words, the Commission said that the Northern Ireland fishing industry is special and worthy of being given priority in its dealings under the general guidance and rules.
I raise that matter because we are talking about conservation matters. I must embellish what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said by citing three statistics relevant to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. First, to date there has been a reduction of about 35 per cent. in our fishing fleet. Secondly, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in our catches or landings. Thirdly, 200 to 300 jobs have been lost from a work force of about 2,500.
I can conclude only that Northern Ireland has made a substantial, more proportional, contribution to fishing conservation in the Irish sea than anyone else. That was confirmed when, as the hon. Member for North Antrim said, we visited Brussels in the past couple of weeks, but we could still be penalised because Brussels alleges—I want the Minister to comment on this—that the United Kingdom as a whole has not fulfilled its obligations on conservation. Because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it will be further penalised in the forthcoming multi-annual guidance programme IV. We will suffer disproportionately yet again, despite the fact that we have fulfilled our conservation commitment. That point needs to be made very clearly.
We were also alarmed by the proposals under Lassen for a further 40 per cent. reduction in fishing effort—a 40 per cent. reduction of a 70 per cent. remnant of the fleet of Northern Ireland. That would be devastating. There comes a point when fishing effort at sea—which, of course, supports the onshore process involving factories and jobs—simply collapses. If there are not sufficient catches coming ashore, the whole industry, both at sea and ashore, will collapse like a pack of cards.
The Lassen report has been scorned and opposed by all participating Governments, but it is the only report on the table. There is no other proposal. All the others are in the air, and we must be very careful, because Commissioner Bonino is very enamoured of it.
The quota restrictions that we think will be imposed are frightening for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Whiting, plaice, herring and haddock have been placed in the same category. I shall deal with one of the species to illustrate our problem with all the quotas. In 1997, the Irish sea whiting total allowable catch will suffer its greatest reduction, from 9,000 tonnes in 1996. The scientific community recommended a TAC of 7,500 tonnes, but the Commission has now proposed one of 6,400—a cut of 29 per cent. We simply cannot withstand such a cut. We also do not understand it. All the signs indicate that, in 1997, the potential is good for whiting fishing.
On Irish sea whiting, the ICES scientists report stated:
Whiting is taken mainly as a by-catch in mixed species otter trawl fisheries … The stock is considered to be within safe biological limits.
An interesting comparison can be made on the basis of two quotations in the same report, one on whiting in the Irish sea, the other on whiting off the west of Scotland. On the latter area, the report states:
Whiting is mainly taken as a mixed fishery
and
ICES considers the stock to be within safe biological limits.
There is not a great deal of difference between the quotations about fish stocks in the different areas, yet a reduction of 2,600 tonnes has been recommended for Irish sea whiting, whereas an increase of 2,000 tonnes has been recommended for the west of Scotland.
Can someone explain that paradox? I hope that the Minister will take the point on board. I can run down the list—on whiting, haddock and herring, for example—and find similar contradictions. The cod regime will not be

greatly diminished, yet we know from larval surveys that there are now three times as many cod in the Irish sea as there have been in recent years.
I was interested that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) dealt with the unique problems faced by the Northern Ireland fishing industry. We should remember that it is a fishing industry with three ports that are very close together. It uses a common fishing ground—which is at the confluence of the two tides, north and south—that comprises a specific ecological, fishing and breeding ground. It has a speciality of its own, which, as late as 1992, was mentioned in a paper issued by the Commission.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned the Hague preference. They drew certain conclusions, but they did not go far enough or draw the conclusion that I thought they could have drawn: Northern Ireland should be a top priority fishing region. There is nothing new about that conclusion. In all structural and social funds, the Northern Ireland region has a special connotation—category I. Why cannot that connotation be applied to the fishing industry? If we extrapolate the comments of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in today's statement on BSE, he was saying—or at least he was hinting at it; perhaps, once we examine the small print, it was only vote-catching for tonight's Division and not a reality—or insinuating that Northern Ireland will be a special region in relation to BSE and to lifting the ban, because it has fulfilled the Florence conditions.
Northern Ireland has a specific, coastal-fishing fishing industry. It forms a specific sector, and it has specific fishing grounds. In his speech today, the Minister said that different waters require different conservation measures. I shall take him at his word and ask him to apply other considerations to conservation measures in the Northern Irish fishing industry.
If I am still within my time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to deal with the issue of the Hague preference vis-à-vis the Republic of Ireland. Hon. Members' comments on that matter in today's debate have been correct. There is a surplus in the Republic of Ireland's quota for some species under the Hague preference, whereas there is a shortfall in the UK's allocation in Northern Ireland waters. Over the years, there has been a unilateral arrangement by which the adverse effects of the Hague preference have been diminished and alleviated by the Republic of Ireland swapping its surplus to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
I think that that arrangement should operate on a more regulated basis, rather than using the ad hoc-ery of past years. I ask the Minister to raise that issue with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, and to conduct a small re-arrangement of the Hague preference to alleviate its adverse effects on Northern Ireland.
Despite the assurances given to us today that the Minister is going hell for leather against the Hague preference, he told me recently—in a letter of 12 December 1996—that it was not in the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry to deal with the Hague preference now. That is a very different message from that which he gave the House today.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister said that I had expressed my concerns about the six and 12-mile limits. Although that is true, I should tell the House that those concerns pale into insignificance compared with my concern about the regime that we are now debating. There is no doubt that the common fisheries regime is both evil and corrupting. It is evil because of its devastating effect on the marine environment; it is corrupting because, among other things, it obliges otherwise honest men to become criminals.
That fact is well demonstrated by the words spoken in court by a Shetland fisherman, as reported in the Fishing News of 13 December 1996. He said:
We can't help what we catch … I had dumped 400 boxes of saithe … Who has committed the biggest crime—me, who landed 25 boxes, or a system which made me dump 400 boxes?
That is why I say that the regime is totally unacceptable.
The problem of discards and quotas is well known; perhaps less well known is the amount of fish that is destroyed onshore. In Peterhead harbour in June, and in Scalloway harbour in the Shetlands in August, colleagues and I saw prime fresh fish covered with red paint which was to be destroyed because it did not fetch the minimum landing price decreed by the European Community. How can we possibly claim that such policies—all of which were introduced in the name of conservation—are having their intended effect when thousands upon thousands of tonnes of fish are dumped at sea and when prime fresh fish is being destroyed ashore?
The common fisheries policy is not a practical policy. On the contrary, it is a political policy in which a vital British national interest is subjugated in the quest for European hegemony. It offends against common sense; it lacks credibility and any notion of morality; and its only principle—that of European integration—is one that I and thousands of fishermen cannot possibly support.
The principle that I do support is that of defending a vital national interest. I respectfully suggest that, the Government should not talk about national interests unless they are prepared to defend them, which they are at present failing to do in British waters around Guernsey where the perception is that the United Kingdom has not deployed the Royal Navy for fear of upsetting the French.
I met Guernsey fishermen in the Palace of Westminster last Thursday. They complained of harassment, intimidation, blackmail and of being set up for prosecution, all of which the Government have apparently not seen fit to counter. My hon. Friend the Minister has repeatedly stated that the six and 12-mile limits are not negotiable. Will he therefore tell the House why armed French naval vessels of the Affaires Maritimes have sailed into the six to 12-mile limits off Guernsey in support of French fishing vessels?
I deal now with some other aspects of the common fisheries policy. The House must not portray Jacques Santer, Emma Bonino and the other Commissioners as bogeymen and women; we should see them for what they are—Commissioners of the European Union, spelling out, often with disarming honesty and clarity, what we in the United Kingdom have already signed up to in three solemn and binding treaties leading inexorably to European integration.
I should like to say a word or two about fishing permits. In answer to a parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
Council regulations 3760/92 and 1627/94 provide the framework for the Community's licensing and permit systems to enable member states to regulate fishing activities … They do not entail a European fleet run from Brussels."—[Official Report, 11 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 73.]
I have just two points to make about that. First, the permits represent days at sea by another name. Secondly, they are aspects of European policy, and while member states may administer them, they will do so only as the designated agent of the central authority in Brussels. As I shall show in a moment, neither the UK nor any other member state of the European Community has competence in these matters.
I do not argue with the basic premise of permits. If one accepts the principle of a common fisheries policy, a permit system is entirely logical, but neither I nor a substantial—and growing—number of people in the fishing industry any longer want a common fisheries policy. I support the aims and objectives of the Save Britain's Fish campaign. I support the repatriation of powers and the establishment of a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone for this country.
The common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed and quite incapable of sensible reform. On that point, we should perhaps remind ourselves of the words of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In a press release dated February 1995, he said:
There is no prospect of a unanimous agreement among the 15 Member States to amend the Treaties which provide the legal basis of the CFP … The fact is that the UK has accepted, by Treaty, that Fisheries lie within the competence of the European Community".
The principle of equal access and the prospect of the permit system is wholly unacceptable both to this nation, which recognises it as a loss of sovereignty, and to the fishing industry, which sees it as a sell-out of British waters and as a giving away of the substantial fish stocks in them, not to mention the livelihood of British fishermen.
As for the immediate import of this debate, we shall soon vote on these important issues. I repeat now what I have said on previous occasions: this vote, whether the Government win or lose, will not change one jot or tittle of the common fisheries policy. It is quite bogus and, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), it is humbug for the Opposition parties to pretend that they have grounds for opposing the Government tonight.
When I intervened on him, the Opposition spokesman confirmed what we have long known—that the Labour party is committed to the common fisheries policy. It is committed to the principle of equal access to the common resource. Unless it changes its mind on that question, it has no locus to criticise or vote against what the Government are trying to do. The reality is that even if Labour were to form the Government tomorrow, it would still be bound by the common fisheries policy.
To conclude, I remind hon. Members of the extent of the House's power over fisheries policy. In a letter dated 19 June 1996, J. Almeida Serra of the Fisheries Directorate General XIV, said:
Member States have transferred exclusive competence to the community with regard to the conservation and management of living marine resources. This competence applies in regard to waters under national fisheries jurisdiction and to the high seas.


I say again that it is bogus for the Opposition parties to pretend that they could have any policy other than the common fisheries policy unless and until that policy is scrapped.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will forgive me, I have to say that it is his argument that is bogus and humbug. He made a case for not supporting the Labour party's amendment; he most certainly does not have an argument for supporting the Government, which is what he said he was going to do.
People in the fishing industry will hear that the Eurosceptics, who say that they support the industry, are now going to support the Government. Those people will cast their minds back to the voting behaviour of some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues during the days-at-sea controversy, for example, where again those hon. Members' support for the fishing industry and opposition to the Government were found wanting. The hon. Member for Ludlow may quarrel with the Labour party, with me and with the Liberal party, but according to the argument that he has advanced he does not have a shred of credibility if he is not prepared to oppose the Government.
The Minister said that he disliked the Scottish National party. I am afraid that that does not cause me any anxiety whatsoever. I have to tell him that the fishing industry dislikes the Government. It dislikes the Government not because of the 10-point plan that the Minister has introduced, but because of the past 10 years of inaction and failure to defend the industry's interests. The broken water of the do-nothing years, as one of the fishing industry's leaders so memorably put it only a while ago, is the reason why the fishing industry does not trust the Government.
There is no doubt that the Labour party's amendment is flawed, but it has the virtue of going over the record of the past 17 years and detailing some of the failures, the betrayals and the sell-outs in which the Government have engaged vis-à-vis the fishing industry. It would be enormously helpful if the Labour party would discuss its amendment with the other six Opposition parties, all of which have an interest in the fishing industry. It would not only be useful for the Labour party to show some humility in recognising that every Opposition party vote is necessary to defeat the Government, but the combined wisdom of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Unionist parties, the Liberals and the Scottish National party might improve Labour's amendment. Judging from its document charting the road to the manifesto, which does not mention the subject, the Labour party's commitment to the fishing industry is minimal. Nevertheless, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will support the Labour amendment and, if it comes to a vote, will oppose the Government motion as an indictment of the Government's track record on the industry.
I want to raise three specific fishing issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland before turning to some more general points. First, I reinforce the point made about sprat by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). There is a difficulty with the by-catch in the pelagic sector. I hope that the Minister will deal with that when he sums up.
Secondly, on the haddock quota on the west coast and in the North sea, it is vital to contest the argument that because the area is a mixed fishery, if there is a decline in the cod quota, the haddock quota must also decline. We can still have a clean fishery for haddock in a mixed fishery. On the west coast, cod fishing takes place in February, March and April and not in the rest of the year. It does not follow that haddock and cod quotas should go down in sequence. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will devote the same amount of energy to the haddock quota in the North sea as was devoted to the plaice quota last year and that the decline of the haddock quota on the west coast will be visited before the final decisions are made.
Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of the Hague preference. I want at least one voice this evening to speak in support of the Hague preference, which is important for the Scottish industry. I hope that that will be acknowledged by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he sums up. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who introduced the debate, told us that all the fishing representatives had agreed that the Hague preference should be reconsidered. I consulted the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and found that it had not agreed; it had just been told that the issue would be reconsidered. The Minister then told us that the representatives had not agreed, but they had not objected when he had told them. He then told us—the record will confirm this—that there were differing views across the United Kingdom.
As a Member of Parliament representing Scottish fishermen, I shall obviously defend the Hague preference because it has played an important role in defending the Scottish fishing industry, particularly the haddock quota. However, one point about the Hague preference should not go unsaid. Negotiated in the mid-1970s by Garret Fitzgerald, then Irish Foreign Minister, it is the one part of the common fisheries policy that relates to fishing dependency. It may do that imperfectly, but that is a valuable principle to defend. Apart from the point that Ireland's great success in formulating and defending the Hague preference shows how a small nation in Europe can gain results by making one issue a priority, the Hague preference is worth defending in principle. I have a little advice for Labour Front Benchers. Perhaps they should address the concerns of hon. Members from Northern Ireland by saying that their interests will be defended in the swaps arrangements and that, unlike last year, the commitments will be delivered this year, whatever party is in power.
I come now to the issues at the heart of the problems with the common fisheries policy. I remind the fisheries Minister who opened the debate that I have been criticising the common fisheries policy since long before he became the Minister responsible for fisheries. Having seen fisheries Ministers come and go with depressing regularity, I fully expect to be criticising it long after he has stopped being the Minister.
The Government wonder why I doubt their commitment on flags of convenience. It is partly because of their record. Back in 1988, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I argued in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill that the Government's measures were likely to fail in the European Court and we put forward an alternative proposal for residential requirements for the crews of such vessels.


The Government told us that such a measure was silly and unnecessary. It was clearly not unnecessary and a residential requirement on the crew would have been more logical than imposing a language requirement, which seems to be the Minister's latest idea.
My real concern about flags of convenience vessels relates to the Government's recent record. I refer to the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to the President of the Board of Trade on 12 November, when he made a statement on the Government's objections to the 48-hour directive. My hon. Friend said:
Despite its flexibility, the time scale for implementation and the existing derogations, will that issue now take priority over discussions about matters such as the common fisheries policy …?
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
There are other important issues to be addressed at the intergovernmental conference, but it is this issue"—
the 48-hour directive—
that matters to the Government and we intend to insist upon it."— [Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 163.]
I do not think that it is unfair for me to ask the Government what would happen if agreement were reached on flags of convenience vessels but not on the 48-hour directive. Would the Government block their own achievement on fishing in pursuit of their opposition to the 48-hour directive? As the Amsterdam summit comes conveniently after the general election, the question can also be addressed to those on the Labour Front Bench. Presumably they can apply their minds directly to flags of convenience vessels because they do not oppose the 48-hour directive. After so many years of betrayal, we are entitled to ask about the priority being given to this long-running sore for the fishing industry.
My second issue is relative stability. That is the rock on which the common fisheries policy becomes tolerable or intolerable. Many of us had our confidence in the future of the policy severely damaged when the Government—together with other Governments—conceded early access to western waters for the Spanish. That was a staggering achievement by the Spanish. They had to revisit and reinterpret their treaty of accession, achieve unanimity across all member states and win legal opinion. Having started with indefensible arguments, the Spanish managed to achieve early access against all the odds because they had it as a top priority.
The European Parliament fisheries committee elected as its rapporteur Ms Carmen Fraga Estevez—a Spanish Member of the European Parliament who is known to be a hard-line supporter of free access to all fisheries. That is depressing for the future of the policy. The House may be interested to learn that the British Conservatives in the European Parliament were among her sponsors for that post: they put forward a hard-line Spanish federalist as rapporteur for that crucial fisheries committee. It is little wonder the fishing industry has scant confidence in many of the Conservative party's statements.
My last general point is on low quotas. More than any other issue, the idiocy of having to throw back dead into the sea perfectly good fish has undermined confidence on the quayside in the common fisheries policy. At a certain point, the low quota policy starts to work in a perverse direction.
The ideas that have come from the industry of a tax on industrial fishing and technical measures to defend the industry have not been pursued with the urgency that is required. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may frown—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): What tripe!

Mr. Salmond: Tripe, is it? I saw more action after the Government's defeat last year in the fisheries debate than I had seen in my previous eight years in the House. Nothing has concentrated the Government's mind more wonderfully than being defeated in the House last year. We have had 30 points from the fisheries review group and a 10-point plan from the Minister. Why? Fishing has at last become a key political issue because the Government know that they face defeat in the Chamber. It is the prospect of defeat that has concentrated the Government's mind. It is the prospect of defeat that has stopped fishing being traded off, as it has so often been before, in pursuit of other objectives.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will pardon us if, as Members who represent fishing constituencies, we look for a time when it will not require the imminence of political defeat in the House of Commons to concentrate the Government's mind on the fishing industry. We want a Government who concentrate on fishing full time, all the time. In my opinion, that means a Scottish Government.

Mr. David Porter: Every year, we have this pre-quota debate on fisheries, and every year we face huge cuts in the quota, the fleet or both. Every year the Minister, like his predecessors, goes off to Europe and returns waving a piece of paper and saying, "The cuts are less than first thought: that must be a triumph." Every year, in spite of and because of this ritual, the fleet gets smaller and the job gets harder.
Visitors to Lowestoft fish market are often shocked at the low level of activity when they have heard from people who recall walking from deck to deck across the harbour not so many years ago. The fishing boats were wedged in because there were so many of them. Anyone who looks at what is happening is shocked. Even those of us who have watched it happening are shocked at what has been done. The industry has not been calling wolf all these years. The warnings have been sounded and now we really are at the point of no return in so many aspects of fishing.
It is bad enough that coastal communities are being devastated, but the biggest tragedy of all is that fishing, managed properly, is a renewable resource. If gas, oil or coal is harvested to extinction, that is it and everybody understands that, but if fishing is wiped out, it is a failure of the regime that regulates it. The CFP and all that is done in its name is that regime. It is a monument to the nightmare world of bureaucracy where, in pursuit of a misguided ideal of a common European policy for something as diverse and varied as the whole European fishery, a British industry is in danger of being sacrificed. Everything comes back to that policy.
If cuts and restrictions to save the industry were being presented now as a make-or-break deal, the industry would accept them. It might have accepted this year's


proposed cuts—for example, 48 per cent. in North sea sole against the background of the best sole fishery in living memory. However, cuts happen every year; there are more cuts every year because the previous year's cuts have failed.
I am encouraged—vindicated even—to find that no one now defends the CFP, although not enough people are yet arguing for our removal from it. As has been said, and as needs to be said again and again, the CFP is flawed from top to bottom. There is no incentive in it to conserve and manage the renewable resource because any savings in catch effort go back into the pool for the greedy Mediterranean fishermen to grab. There is the added problem in terms of conservation, which was mentioned earlier, of discarding dead fish over and above quota. Can there be a more bizarre, crazy and ludicrous political idea than the CFP, which does the precise opposite of what is intended?
Every year, more and more people are waking up to this madness. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has said, fishing has risen up the political agenda. This year, the Government have given almost a full day to the debate, which is very welcome. Every year, the media get into a frenzy about the chances of the Government being defeated. Last year, the Government were defeated; I abstained on that occasion, although I had voted against the Government previously.
The point is that defeat made no difference. The Minister still went off to Europe, still spent a weekend arguing with our alleged partners and still came back with permission to catch fewer British fish than before. If the Government are defeated tonight, it will again make no difference at all. The Minister will still go off and the 1997 quotas will still be set. Tonight I shall vote with the Government: the time to vote against is afterwards, when the Minister comes back with a deal that is too poor to accept.
Furthermore—[Interruption.] Labour Front-Bench Members laugh. Furthermore, to vote against the Government means voting with the Opposition, and their views on fisheries policy are muddled at best, as we heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I cannot stomach voting tonight with a party that has said that it will never be isolated in Europe and whose leader has ruled out leaving the CFP.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has made a lot of the right noises. He has visited and made himself available to the industry around the country. He has understood the essential problems of trying to run an industry by agreement with other countries whose market tastes, cultural attitudes to rules and political agendas are all totally alien to ours.
The Minister has talked about and promised action on quota hoppers and he is looking at the regional management of separate waters. A dose of benefit of the doubt is due in the Division Lobby tonight. However, the Minister knows, as we all know, that talk of the reform of the CFP and of there being no IGC agreement until details such as quota hoppers and flagship piracy are sorted may be a further part of the con.
The future after the year 2002 is surely already settled. The treaties and regulations now in place and those that will be enforced if no new deals are stitched up in or

before 2002 can be amended only by unanimous agreement. Only a fool would pretend that some European Union member states will vote away their only justification for access to our waters. Even under qualified majority voting, they can hold us to a policy which, increasingly, is in their interests.
If and when more countries enter the bizarre lunacy of the European Union for no other reason than that they will get something out of it at our expense, our position will become worse. We shall have little or no fishing grounds as large fleets are allowed access in return for a slice of equal access to the common resource, which appears to be open to every Tom, Dick and Harry except, of course, the British.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to the European Union special fishing permit. It is based on the 1976 article setting out the CFP, which introduced the repulsive Soviet-style principle of equal access to a common resource. It gives Brussels ultimate power to control numbers of vessels, fishing times, catches and mesh and gear sizes and types. It also sets out fines, including seizure and withdrawal of permits.
The Commission tried to introduce the permit system during the negotiations on Spanish accession to the EU, but it was opposed. When Finland and Sweden joined, they were obliged to sign a treaty to the effect that access arrangements would apply for a transitional period ending by the date of implementation of the Community fishing permit system—not later than 31 December 2002. Treaties must be agreed unanimously, so all Governments of member states knew about the permit system and agreed to it. That leads me to ask whether talk of reform is a cover and whether a single Brussels-controlled fleet has not already been agreed for 2002 or 2003.
I wish my hon. Friend the Minister luck at the Council of Ministers meeting. Let him go to Europe and argue for the British fishing industry, which he knows is in a bad way. Let him go, knowing that that industry could have a bright future with good, lasting jobs and a steady supply of wholesome food. However, if he cuts the quotas or reduces the fleet at Lowestoft any further through the ludicrous decommissioning scheme, which compensates boat owners but not those who are put on the dole when the boats are scrapped, or if the cuts are greater than those of previous years, there will be no fishing left. At Lowestoft, a 40 per cent. cut could mean a 100 per cent. cut because the remaining 60 per cent. would not be viable.
If my hon. Friend has to come back with a deal that includes cuts, he should not come back. If he has to sell us out to get a deal, he should not come back. Our European partners need us more than we need them. We are answerable to the people of the United Kingdom and not the European Union.

Mr. William Ross: When I first saw today's Order Paper, I was greatly cheered. We all thought that we would have a full day's debate, but when we arrived here, we realised that there were two long statements. No less than one hour and 55 minutes disappeared, so we have ended up with little more than the half day that we had last year for one of the most important debates of the year on a topic that is vital to the welfare of fishing communities throughout the


United Kingdom. That is not acceptable. We really need a full day's debate, so that those of us who speak at the tail end of the debate can expand on the issues before us. We all have problems to relate, and if the debate were longer, no doubt other hon. Members would contribute to it.
Reference has been made to quota hopping. When we first entered the quota system, I wonder why nobody had the wit to ring-fence fish quotas in the same way as we ring-fence milk quotas and sheep quotas—which are distributed among the four countries of the United Kingdom and, for sheep, between lowland and upland flocks. If that had been done, we would not be facing the current problems with quota hopping. We are in our current predicament simply because there was not enough forethought when we put our name to the policy in the past.
When I examine the position in Northern Ireland, I am absolutely astonished to find that the Northern Ireland quota has reduced while that of the Irish Republic has increased. In last year's debate, the Minister said:
I assure hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that I shall be pressing the Fisheries Council for increases in the quotas proposed for the Irish sea. We fully appreciate the concerns of the Northern Irish industry about the Hague preference and of course we shall continue to seek to reduce the disadvantage to Northern Ireland resulting from the Hague preference"—
which, of course, has the opposite effect on Scotland—
by carrying out international quota swaps."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1398–99.]
However, that never materialised.
I was told by the Minister in a letter on 12 December:
These frustrations arise not because of the action by the UK in applying Hague Preference, but because of the approach taken by the Republic and I will be taking this up again with the Irish Minister at the December Fisheries Council.
I hope that he will take it up with a great deal more success this year than was the case last year, when we got nowt, which was not much help to the fishermen in Northern Ireland.
We are all disappointed that the swaps that the Minister promised last year did not materialise. Towards the end of the fishing season, we pretty well ran out of whiting. Some were eventually procured from elsewhere, but that had more to do with good fortune than with Government action.
Although I welcome the Minister's remarks today about the Hague preference and revisiting, more needs to be done than that. Inequities must be resolved, but not at the expense of Scottish fishermen. Many communities in Scotland depend on fishing and would disappear if it is not kept up to scratch. Similarly, there are communities in Northern Ireland that are entirely dependent on fishing. We must realise that there is no alternative for those folk.
It would be a great blessing and enlightenment to us all if the Hague preference was published, as well as the appendices to it which, I believe, were never signed. We should all like to read them and see what we signed up to, or put our hand to.
The fish stocks of cod, herring, whiting and haddock in the Irish sea are in good shape or better. In the case of cod, there has been a reduction in fishing effort, which might account for the decrease in landings. Herring and whiting stocks seem to fishermen to be adequate;

fishermen and scientists are often at variance. Whiting stocks, like those in the west of Scotland, are combined with other fish. Many of us cannot understand why that should be so. They should be treated as a distinct fishery, which they are.
At one time, haddock were scarce in the Irish sea. There is now a haddock stock off the coast of Down, and there is evidence that they are spawning there. I hope that that reflects the attitude of the Northern Ireland fishermen towards conservation, and the gear that they use. Those fish, however, are not being caught; we are not allowed to catch them, because area VIIa of the Irish sea is part of the larger area VII, which extends far beyond the confines of the Irish sea. Although haddock are scarce in the overall area, they are locally abundant. Surely it is time that we considered carefully a more localised fishing policy to deal with the changes over the years in the abundance or scarcity of particular species of fish.
Scientists often seem to get matters wrong. Would it not be a good idea for them to go out on the fishing boats, so that they could see what the fishermen are catching, and whether fish are abundant or scarce, rather than the scientists being taken round once or twice a year to take quick samples here and there? In theory, that could be accurate, but to be sure of accuracy, scientists should make many more stops than they can under the present system. If they were out on the boats, as they used to be, we would have a more accurate idea of stocks.
There is one topic concerning fishermen that has not been mentioned: the way in which the jobseeker's allowance impacts on fishermen. I hope that the Minister will take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Social Security. The JSA is not designed for the fishermen's life style. The scheme is for people who are out of work, but fishermen are not out of work. Their work is simply intermittent, and their working days are not foreseeable. When they go into the local office to make a claim, they are told that they can have an appointment in a couple of weeks' time. In two weeks' time, they might be fishing and they cannot go. It is an important matter, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to do something about it.
We have heard much about the Government's demerits. We have heard remarkably little about the Opposition's policy, and rather more about their hopes. As the real debate will take place in a month or six weeks, it might be as well to see the outcome of that before we make up our mind on our attitude to the Government.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In view of the shortness of time, I thought that I would have to resort to the formula of saying that I would not be able to follow what the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said and the way in which he said it, but he touched on the Opposition's policy, and, as they were unable to say anything about it, it seemed only fair, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to comment on it, and perhaps help out the hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have either sparingly deposited or positively heaped praised on my hon. Friend the Minister of State, for the way in which he has performed over the past year, which is entirely right. What he has achieved has been quite remarkable. I have certainly noticed a difference in the perception and understanding of fishermen who have spoken to me of what the Government are trying to do for them.
The unhappiness that always underpins fisheries debates underpins the debate again today. The problem is that the Minister can swim only in the water in which he finds himself. The water in which he is swimming at the moment is that of the common fisheries policy. At first sight, it is easy to say that the CFP is dreadful, we should get out of it and some other policy out there would be so much better. I do not think that that is easy to say. The CFP is only a symptom of something that is very bad indeed; it is telling us something about the European Community's very nature.
It is all too easy to deride people with views such as mine and say, "Hang on a second. What you are really talking about is withdrawing from the European Community." I am proposing no such thing. There is no question of our being able to withdraw from Europe—a million war dead from two world wars testify to the fact that the fate of the Government and the country is inextricably tied up with Europe. The argument is about not whether we pull out of Europe, but the terms on which we participate in Europe.
Among other things, the debate illustrates that, after 25 years in Europe on the terms that we have had—and have—in Europe, we must ask ourselves whether they are the right terms for our continuing participation in Europe. It seems to me that they are not. One has only to look at the CFP and the circumstances in which the Minister must try to defend British interests to know that this business of the European Union as it is now constructed simply cannot go on. I hope that one day—not tonight, but perhaps some time in the not too distant future—the British Government will say to the EU, "You have aspirations about your destiny and a desire for political union and federation that make perfect and honourable sense, given your history, but they are not for us."
We have to find a relationship with Europe that makes us good Europeans—I perhaps speak just for myself—instead of bad Europeans. We cannot for ever keep on asking our so-called partners in Europe to do things our way when, universally, they want to do things their way. There will come a point when we shall have to ask our European partners, "What can we honestly and genuinely agree and co-operate on?" In my judgment, we shall agree on a trading arrangement, which will carry with it a number of features. Those features will include taking back our own destiny, making our own decisions, taking back our territorial waters and rejecting for ever the concept that, in some way, our resources are a common EU resource.
Although I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their excellent attitude over the past year and although I have been heartened by what they have said about quota hopping, to which I shall return, I have to strike a sombre note. There is a limit to what they can do in Europe with a common fisheries policy while we are hobbled to the EU in such a way.
If time allowed, I would go through all the aspects that have been raised by my local fishing people throughout the year and set out what they would ideally like. In order that my hon. Friend the Minister takes note, I should simply mention that the total allowable catch of monkfish is of particular concern in the west country.
On quota hopping, one has only to look at the figures supplied by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to realise what an outrage is being perpetrated on fishing people at the moment. The Dutch hold 44 per cent. of the UK's plaice quota and 20 per cent. of the UK's sole quota. The Spanish—for crying out loud—hold 46 per cent. of the UK's hake quota, 35 per cent. of our megrim quota and 29 per cent. of our monkfish quota. Those figures, and the situations that they represent, must stop.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend, who is my neighbour in Devon, agree that quota hopping is precisely the issue at the heart of all the complaints that we receive from fishermen in the south-west? Does he also agree that that has been recognised by the Government in their refusal to sign any further Maastricht treaty without having reached an accommodation on that crucial issue?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. He is saying on the Floor of the House precisely what he and I have said to each other and on delegations to Ministers over many years. Quota hopping is the key point in the unsatisfactory nature of the current situation. Because we are locked into the European Union, to get some reform, we shall have to threaten to shake down the temple. That is essentially what Ministers are saying that they intend to do.
Inevitably, some people outside will say that politics is a matter of choice. Many people think that politics is a choice between the bad and the frightful; obviously I do not accept that. There must be people who are concerned about the fishing industry and have been watching this debate who have said, "What's on offer? There's going to be an election soon. Perhaps we should have a look at the other parties' policies."
It is completely in a spirit of friendship that I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that his speech was truly frightful. I am glad that he has come back so as not to miss the words of praise that I am about to heap on him.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was frightful, not because he lacks forensic debating skills—I know from our past exchanges that he is endowed with those—but because he is too honest. It was impossible for him, with the brief that he had, to make a fist of supporting the proposition that the Labour party had anything constructive to say about its policy. Over and over again, he failed to talk about policy. Perfectly correctly, he refused to give way to me when I wanted to chide him about some of what he had said about Labour party policy in the past. He did not want to know, and he was perfectly right.
At one point, a look of horror spread over the hon. Gentleman's face and he asked what the Government were doing in 1991 and 1992. In 1992, the hon. Gentleman was fighting on a Labour manifesto that contained not a single word about the fishing industry. Not long afterwards, the European elections were fought. What did the Labour party say about fishing then? Absolutely nothing.
To be fair, even the Labour party can learn. It has now published a document called, "New Labour, New Life for Britain", which contains a statement about fish: it is one word shorter than the title of the document. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman did not want to give way


on his policy, because he does not have one that he can honestly state and, being the decent chap that he is, he was not prepared to pretend that he had.
The reality is that the hon. Gentleman is wedded hook, line and sinker to the common fisheries policy because he is a federalist. I do not know whether he genuinely believes in that and feels more comfortable as an arch-federalist in an arch-federalist party than he did in all the previous general elections that he fought as someone who wanted to come out of the Community, but the fact is that he is hooked, because Labour is in favour of a federal Europe, and policies such as the common fisheries policy are the inevitable consequence of that.
To try to attract people to the prospect of voting Labour because it might have a good fisheries policy, all that the hon. Gentleman can say is that he will put up with the status quo, that he will never be isolated in Europe and that he will abandon the veto. That is the sum total of the Labour party's policy on fishing. To put it as kindly as one can, that is not an attractive prospect.
The Liberal party will have a policy for every season. I tried to find out what the Liberal policy on fishing was. I was none the wiser for listening to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr, Wallace).

Mr. Wallace: It is in our document.

Mr. Nicholls: It is impressive to learn that the hon. Gentleman went away to find out for himself what Liberal policy was. Apparently, the Liberal Democrats believe in establishing a European fishing fleet managed by EU regional executives. That will terrify our partners in Europe about the desire and intent of the Liberal party to—

Mr. Wallace: Rubbish.

Mr. Nicholls: It is rubbish, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being prepared to admit that fact. What could one expect? The Liberal party does not have many principles that have not changed over the years, but the one principle of which it has always been in favour is a united states of Europe. After all, every Liberal parliamentary candidate will stick a commitment in his manifesto to the effect that, in any circumstances, the Liberals will opt for a European currency. What else on earth could one expect from a party that says that it has only one principle that matters to it—a united states of Europe? When a party has such a federalist agenda, it cannot possibly stand up for British fishermen.
What is the significance of tonight's vote? When our Ministers go to Europe to argue in the thoroughly unsatisfactory climate created by the common fisheries policy, it would be nice if they could argue with their opposite numbers and say, "Whatever else disunites us in the House of Commons, everyone is with us on this. We have certain irreducible demands." If the vote goes the wrong way, or, frankly, even if we win it narrowly, Ministers will be unable to say that. Out there, when my hon. Friends are negotiating with their opposite numbers in Europe, those European Ministers will have a sneaking suspicion that the Labour party does not have the resolve to stand up to them. They will say to themselves, "There is a general election coming along soon. Perhaps the Labour party will win. Well, we can see what the Labour

party is like. It did not back the Government even on something such as this. We know that it will be a pushover." That is the problem we face.
It was put better than I can certainly put it by the Western Morning News, not a newspaper from which I am usually able to quote with approbation in the House. It is a stern critic, at times perhaps fairly so. It issued an editorial today under the heading, "Don't Sabotage Fishing Industry". It called for the industry to remain non-political and asked for unity in British interests. It said:
Defeat would send the wrong signals to European leaders on this crucial issue—and weaken John Major's hand in fighting for a better deal for our fishermen.
Ministers have said that they will stand up for the key issue that matters more than anything else to our fishing communities. They have said that they simply will not tolerate the continuance of the present practice of quota hopping. If we presented a united voice tonight, and if the Opposition said, "Whatever else disunites us, we will back the Government on this," what a marvellous bargaining position that would be for my hon. Friends. Instead, when my hon. Friends go to Europe next, they will be looking at their opposite numbers, who believe that a Labour victory is possible. They know that if that happens, they will have to do business with people who will ultimately sell this country's rights down the river. That is a pretty sombre prospect. That is why we should win the vote, and win the general election in six months' time.

Mr. Elliot Morley: It is time to get back to reality after the fantasy world presented by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
It is true that this annual debate has had a higher profile in recent years than it had in the past. Of course that is not all to do with the fishing industry, but the narrow votes on the issue in the past couple of years have been far from damaging for the fishing industry. They have benefited it in all sorts of ways. The Minister offered us a grand tour of the fishing constituencies and uttered warm words about the Members who represent them. In fact, he uttered such words about Members who were not even here for the debate, including the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).
In the past we have witnessed increases in decommissioning grants; the reinstatement of port improvement grants; and tonight we have been offered more promises of fish for the Ulster fishing fleets. It is not clear from the Minister's contribution, however, from where exactly the fish will come. Of course we are all delighted about an extra allocation for the Ulster fleets, or any other fleet, but we would appreciate some details about where those fish will come from and how the transfers will be made. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will deal with that when he replies to the debate, because I am sure that I am not the only person who is curious about it.
I should also like the hon. Gentleman to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and his hon. Friends about the Hague preference. Let me be absolutely straight and honest about


it—it is important to start how we intend to go on in our future relationship. Of course, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said, it was introduced by a Labour Minister. At the time it was welcomed by the industry because it gave the United Kingdom fishing industry an extra allocation of fish as a fallback when quotas were being pressed. In that respect it provided the industry with a safety net.
I have consistently argued that the Hague preference has its disadvantages, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may remember challenging me in Committee on this matter. At that time, I expressed concerns about the fact that the Hague preference operates against the interests of the Ulster fleet and some of the fleets from the east coast of England. As an hon. Member who represents a Humberside constituency, I understand the concerns of the Humber ports and the east coast fleet. But while recognising the disadvantages, the Labour party has always conceded that the Hague preference provides a safety net and we must look at the interests of the whole country. Having said that, we recognise that the calculations for the Hague preference are not working in the best interests of our country overall, and the Minister alluded to that. That is something that needs to be considered.
We have always argued in the past that, in terms of the quota round and TACs, the Minister should wherever possible argue for quotas that do not trigger the Hague preference because it can work against the Irish fleet. It can be a two-edged sword. In the longer term, we welcome the report from the working group on CFP reform, which has put forward some interesting arguments about more autonomy in coastal state management and regional management. That is very much in line with the approach that Labour has taken. We recognise the interests of the regions, and we aim to represent the interests of all the fleets and their own particular regional issues. We can look at that, but it must be debated in the context of the reform of the CFP.
The Government motion tonight is significant not for what it says, but for what it does not say. First, I wish to refer to the TAC details, some of which have been touched on in the debate. We have heard concerns about the details, and I know that the Minister is aware of the views of the industry on the matter. There is concern about the way in which the west coast cod and haddock quotas have been linked together to protect cod, as it is felt that the science—particularly on the west coast—is not as sound as it could be. I very much hope that the Minister will press the Commission on this point.
There has been a large cut in the whiting TAC in the Irish sea of 29 per cent. It seems difficult to justify a cut of that size, and I hope that the Minister will press that matter. There is a strong argument in favour of maintaining the North sea plaice TAC at the same level, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. There also has been a large cut in the sole quota, which will have severe effects on the fleet. We recognise that difficult decisions have to be made on the basis of good science, but I hope that that large cut can be justified.

Mr. Salmond: I do not wish to refer to the Hague preference, as the hon. Gentleman knows my views on it. Does he take on board the view of a number of Members

of other parties that it would have been useful and constructive if the other six Opposition parties had seen the Labour amendment and had had an opportunity to contribute some ideas to it?

Mr. Morley: As a general principle, I believe in that, but the hon. Gentleman may not know that the Government did not table their motion until last Friday. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) only had last Friday to formulate an amendment, which had to be tabled then for today's debate. It was not possible in that time to contact other parties, but it is something to bear in mind for the future.
I very much welcome the fact that the industry has questioned why there should not be a cut in the TAC for sprats. If there has been a cut in the TAC for herring, it follows that there is some logic in reducing the sprat quota. That is also linked with the argument about industrial fishing in the North sea—the one issue on which there has been almost unanimous agreement tonight. Along with Members from all parties, I attended the launch of a report supported by Unilever which identified the problems of the impact of industrial fishing on the biomass in the North sea, and on the relationship between sand-eels as a prey item for commercial fish and marine mammals and marine birds.
The Minister mentioned the possibility of TACs on sand-eels and that is welcome, but the provisional figures that I have seen suggest that those TACs would be very high indeed and I am not sure that they would significantly reduce the impact of industrial fishery. It would be more logical to follow the report's recommendation, which is closing certain areas to industrial fishing on a precautionary principle. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic thought to that proposal.
Other quotas need careful examination and, in addition, there is the issue of so-called banking and borrowing, with which the Minister will be familiar. The United Kingdom and its fishing industry have a good record on quota utilisation and the provisions on banking and borrowing should be kept to a minimum.
Apart from the TAC-related concerns, the Council of Ministers still has unfinished business in respect of multi-annual guidance programme IV, which has been mentioned tonight. We have yet to hear the Government's response to the report of the common fisheries policy review group and it would be useful if the Minister were to indicate when the Government intend to reply to that report. I congratulate those involved in the group, because their report was useful and took forward the debate on fisheries management. The Minister touched on the issue of technical conservation and the Commission's proposals and I share some of the concerns that he expressed. Finally, one of the most divisive issues is that of flagships, and a constant theme in tonight's debate has been how that problem can be dealt with. We believe that we can approach many of those difficulties within the context of a European fisheries management framework.
I agree with the Minister's comments in respect of the Guernsey dispute—a dispute relating to a country that is not within the common fisheries policy, which needs to be resolved through bilateral negotiations and agreements. With my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) I met the Guernsey fishermen to discuss the


problem. The United Kingdom clearly has an interest and, although the Home Office is the lead Department in this matter, I hope that the Minister will look at the way in which the rules covering French territorial waters up to the 12-mile limit apply to the sort of trawlers that are banned from operating with the French 12-mile limit, but that are operating within the Guernsey island 12-mile limit. It does not seem unreasonable that the rules applicable in French waters should also apply within Guernsey waters.
Tonight's vote is not only about what is on the Order Paper, but about the fact that, for all the Government's fine words, nothing has been achieved on the flagship issue in the past 15 years. One attempt was made in 1988, but little has been done since. In terms of the motion, nothing has changed since last year—the Government have won no concessions on the flagship issue. I know that some hon. Members voted against last year's motion on a point of principle and I respect that, but there is no reason why they should turn around this year and embrace the motion tonight. Nothing has been gained for the industry and the same problems persist.
The Government have talked tough, but they talked tough about Spanish accession and that was conceded in the end. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) called on the Labour party to use the veto in the intergovernmental conference, but there are legitimate questions to be asked, such as whether protocol changes in the intergovernmental conference are the best or most appropriate way of dealing with the flagship issue. If it is possible to deal with the issue of flagships in the IGC, will the Minister tell us whether that will apply only to ships that come on to the register in future, or whether it can be made to apply retrospectively to those ships that are currently on the register? That is the pressing issue. Other member states may legitimately ask why, if the issue is so crucial to the UK, the Government did not make more of it when the common fisheries policy went through its mid-term review.
I give the hon. Member for Bridlington an undertaking. A future Labour Government will explore all appropriate ways—not only the IGC—to resolve the flagship issue and issues such as the six and 12-mile limits, which to us are non-negotiable, and more autonomy for coastal state nations within the CFP.
The hon. Member for Bridlington should not have had to ask, because no issue that we discussed tonight will be resolved until after the next general election. In that respect, all those problems are being left for a Labour Government to resolve. That is why, after 17 years, the Government are talking tough. It is easy to make all sorts of claims and promises before an election, knowing that those issues will not be dealt with. I know the underlying agenda.
A year from now, there will be a Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box and Conservative Members will be asking about those issues and drawing them to the Minister's attention. A year from now, I will remind them of that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Tonight's debate was sometimes lively, sometimes thoughtful and sometimes very unthoughtful. It was made notable by the

contributions and valedictory speeches on fisheries matters by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). They both said that, next year, when the fisheries debate takes place, for the first time for many years neither of them will be here. I say on behalf of the House that the annual debate will be the poorer, because no one doubts their commitment to fighting their constituents' corner. I will be here next year, however, replying to the debate.
Regrettably, for the second year in succession, no member of the shadow Scottish Office team bothered to take part in the debate. This year, no member of the shadow Scottish Office team even signed the motion standing in the name of the official Opposition. We may draw two possible conclusions: either that the members of the team could not be bothered or that they do not agree with the motion tabled in the name of the Opposition and might join the Government in the Lobby tonight. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the shadow Scottish Secretary, did not even bother to attend the debate.
I hope to allay some of the fears that were expressed. We are all aware of the uncertainty of many fishermen about the future of their industry. Many of them feel threatened, for example by the growing interest of environmental bodies, by regulation from Brussels and by unfair competition. In the past year I have been at particular pains, therefore, to travel round Scotland to hear the industry's concerns at first hand. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), have done likewise.
I hope that I have been able to act as an honest and accurate observer. I say that because, not only do I have the privilege of representing the considerable Scottish interest in the UK industry, but I have a personal interest because of the key role that fishing plays in my constituency.
When we focus on the problems of the sea fishing industry, we tend to forget that the industry remains viable and profitable. It continues to provide opportunities and rewards. The income of the whole fleet is up by 7 per cent. at a time when the Government have achieved historically low inflation, and that income has been shared among fewer boats.
If we are to safeguard that viability, we must acknowledge that the sea's natural resources are finite. The industry has changed significantly in recent years. The greater capacity of vessels to fish for longer periods, during the worst weather, over a greater sea area, using new electronic aids, means that we run the constant risk of taking too many fish out of the sea. If we put at risk the ability of some species to reproduce, we shall all be poorer.
In the debate, the Hague preference was mentioned by the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and—repeatedly—by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The EU has consistently recognised the need to sustain communities that depend heavily on fishing. That is why the system of Hague preferences allows the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to secure a higher share of certain fish stocks when the total allowable


catches fall below a certain threshold. By invoking the Hague preference, the UK can increase its share of selected quotas. For others, the UK needs to invoke the Hague preference to offset in part the impact of the Irish Republic's use of the Hague preference.
We recognise that it is unfortunate that the Hague preference mechanisms can work to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland fishermen as a result of the Irish Republic's use of them to gain extra quotas. That is why we have always made clear our readiness to engage in international swaps in order to help fishermen in the Province, recognising that they too are in an area of particular dependence.
We shall continue to invoke the Hague preference when it is in the United Kingdom's interest to do so, but we shall also seek to mitigate any disadvantage that Northern Ireland fishermen might suffer as a result of Irish invocation. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he opened the debate, it is surely right, now that the United Kingdom is no longer a net beneficiary of the Hague preference, for us to review the whole system—away from this debate and away from the Council—early in the new year. At this morning's meeting, the industry accepted that.

Mr. Salmond: Given the new policy on the Hague preference that the Minister has enunciated this evening, can he give a guarantee that, as a result of any review, Scottish fishermen's entitlement will not be disadvantaged by the Government's new approach?

Mr. Robertson: Throughout the debate, the hon. Gentleman has displayed a singular lack of knowledge—indeed, complete ignorance—of what the Hague preference means. Throughout the debate, for his own party-political reasons, he has tried to put Scottish fishermen at the throats of Northern Ireland fishermen. When we invoke the Hague preference to the benefit of Scottish fishermen, in no way does it affect the Northern Ireland catch; only when the Republic invokes it is Northern Ireland affected.
The hon. Gentleman is making speeches all over Scotland comparing Scotland to the Republic, and saying that he would like Scotland to be another Republic of Ireland. We wondered what he meant by that, but now we know what he means: he wants to put Scottish fishermen at the throats of their Northern Ireland counterparts. That is not what the Hague preference is all about, and the hon. Gentleman should wake up to the reality.
The questions of the multi-annual guidance programme and quota-hopping have featured throughout the debate, and rightly so. Earlier this year, the Commission presented its proposals for a new set of medium-term targets to reduce fishing effort—the so-called MAGP. We expect to have a further discussion about those proposals in the Council later this week. While there should be no doubt that some further cut in fishing effort is necessary, the Commission's proposed cuts in fleet capacity go far beyond what member states consider reasonable or practical. Along with other member states, we have therefore been instrumental in pushing for the development of alternative approaches.
Let me repeat the assurances given earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What we are not prepared to do is run down the genuine United Kingdom

fleet so that foreign interlopers can snap up UK quotas that are there for the benefit of our coastal communities. It cannot be right that vessels fishing against UK quotas, flying the Union flag, hardly ever land at UK ports.

Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that, unless a satisfactory agreement is reached on quota-hopping, Her Majesty's Government will veto the proposed treaty at the intergovernmental conference?

Mr. Robertson: I think that I can best answer my hon. Friend by quoting from the interview given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the BBC's "On the Record" yesterday. My right hon. and learned Friend was asked:
It is not a case of speculating, is it? We know that there are some things that you will insist on getting out of that.
He answered:
That we have made absolutely clear. For example, we believe the social chapter should not be introduced by the back door—that is something on which the Prime Minister has made our position very clear; we have to look out for the interests of our fishing communities who have been gravely damaged by the way in which the quota-hopping phenomena have been distorted very much to our disadvantage. These are two clear examples which are fundamental to our objectives in the negotiation.
My right hon. and learned Friend was further asked:
And there will be no deal unless they go along with us on those issues? That is absolutely clear, is it?
He replied:
Yes. We have made it very clear. At the end of the day, the intergovernmental conference reaches a successful conclusion when all the member states are content with the outcome. We have indicated we will not be satisfied with an outcome that does not address … the two points I have just raised.
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) the categorical assurance that he seeks. We have told our European partners that this is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs.
We shall resolve the problem of quota hoppers and we proposed a solution at the intergovernmental conference. As I have said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear over the weekend that the Government attach a high priority to that in the IGC. There can be no question of an agreement at Amsterdam without the issue of quota hoppers being addressed. In the mean time, we have made it crystal clear that we cannot contemplate imposing further compulsory fleet cuts on genuine UK fishermen. I give the House the absolute assurance that we remain firm in our resolve to tackle that problem.
My hon. Friends the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised the issue of the six and 12-mile limits. I noted carefully their comments about our rights to inshore waters. I remind them that when my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate he said that we had made it clear that for us the six and 12-mile limits are and will remain non-negotiable and that any interference with those limits was unacceptable. He described them as an essential derogation from the equal access provisions of the common fisheries policy. That derogation was conceded in 1972 and it is our firm intention to establish those restrictions definitively. In that sense we would not be prepared to accept any move to end them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) inquired about the safety group. The Government attach great importance to safety, which is a matter for the Department of Transport's Marine Safety Agency. I understand that discussions about the future organisation of the group are still taking place and I hope that they will soon reach a satisfactory conclusion. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall make sure that his concerns are passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington and for Ludlow asked what was happening off Guernsey. It has been suggested that in some way the Government have abandoned Guernsey and its fishermen to pursue wider interests with France. That is untrue and in some ways misrepresents the efforts that are being made by Guernsey, the Government and France to reach a long-term solution. Both Guernsey and France are committed to act in moderation and have stressed the importance of reducing tension in the area. I understand that that constructive approach prevails and I welcome that development. The Royal Navy has been close to the area in dispute during the past week, and I assure the House that Royal Navy protection vessels will continue on standby should circumstances require it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington raised the issue of discards. I think we all agree that discarding fish is a terrible waste. We are concerned about how to tackle the problem, and that is one of the main reasons for the Government's decision to set up the fisheries conservation group. We shall pursue the conclusions of the group in respect of a range of conservation measures.
The issue of total allowable catches and quotas rightly featured prominently in the debate. The setting of TACs and quotas is always contentious and fishermen rightly see them as among the main constraints on the freedom to fish. Some regard them as a necessary evil while others think that they are completely unnecessary. However, they are happy to see increases from one year to the next and understandably dismayed when scientists recommend prudent reductions.
I do not adhere to the rather gloomy view that a reduction in one or other TAC necessarily renders fishing uneconomic. In practice, when fish are in short supply price increases can compensate for a reduction in volume, although the position varies from fishery to fishery. For example, following cuts in their TACs, this year's prices for mackerel and herring increased sharply from about £200 to more than £600 a tonne for good quality mackerel. Later this week the Fisheries Council will meet in Brussels to set a TAC for next year for stocks that we share with other member states. I do not expect that to be straightforward.
There have been representations about particular TACs and I shall seek to adjust the Commissioner's proposals where that is justified. We have already signalled to our European partners the importance that we attach to securing a range of increases on the Commissioner's proposals for white fish TACs around our coastline as well as for Irish sea herring. I am keen to maintain pressure to reduce by-catches of juvenile herring in the North sea, not least by setting a responsible TAC for North sea sprat. We shall be doing our utmost to secure an outcome that is in the UK fishing industry's best

interests. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had a useful meeting with the UK industry and it was noticeable and heartening that its priorities and our priorities coincided almost identically. My hon. Friend and I have taken careful note of the views expressed by hon. Members today and, obviously, we will keep in close touch with fishermen's representatives before and during the Council on Thursday.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of farm salmon. He knows that the Government are committed to the Scottish salmon farming industry, which makes an important contribution to the economy of the highlands and island of Scotland and to his constituency in particular. In view of the difficulties that have beset that sector in the past, I have been working with the Scottish industry to try to avoid further market disruption.
That has had one important positive result. Earlier this year, the Norwegian Government were persuaded to introduce feed quotas, which have reduced substantially salmon production in Norway, but, despite those measures, the salmon market has been depressed for more than a year, with the average market price for quality salmon having fallen by some 15 per cent. since last December.
Our industry's concern over competition in the European Union market has been such that the Government encouraged the Scottish Salmon Growers Association to submit an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy complaint to the EU. If convincing evidence comes to light from the Commission's investigation of those complaints, I have assured the industry of the Government's wholehearted backing.
I had hoped that the Norwegian Government's feed restrictions would lead to a recovery in the latter part of this year, but that failed to materialise, so the Government formally requested that minimum import prices for a limited period were reintroduced. Despite efforts to persuade Commissioner Bonino of the case for such temporary action, that request has been rejected.
I am appalled by such insensitive treatment of the industry and of the entire highlands and islands of Scotland, which the Commission recognises as an area of particular need. Mrs. Bonino told me that the European market for salmon had been stable in recent months, if prices were monitored in ecu, but she fails to realise that our salmon farmers are paid not in ecu, but in sterling.
Over the weekend at the Dublin summit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to President Santer the Government's dissatisfaction about the handling of the UK request. He has asked President Santer to take a personal interest in the matter, which we expected would have been considered by the College of Commissioners as a whole. At the Fisheries Council this week, I shall repeat that concern and I look to the Commission to recognise that Scottish producers are entitled to some safeguards while their complaints about dumping and subsidies are investigated.
We have had a useful debate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have listened to various concerns—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I can barely hear the Minister.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend and I have listened to the various concerns that have been expressed and we will consider those further before Thursday's Council. Our basic aim for the Council on Thursday and Friday, and Saturday if necessary, is simple enough. It is to achieve the best deal possible for our fishermen, having regard both to their immediate and to their longer-term needs. Our primary concern in the debate has been to focus on the practical problems facing our fishermen, to show what action we have taken and what further actions we have in hand to protect the long-term interests of this great industry.
There are no simple quick solutions, no panaceas to these problems. I say to some of my hon. Friends who campaign for leaving the CFP that such an approach will be of no practical help to the fishermen whom we all seek to help. It will not solve any of the problems simply to draw new lines on the maps of our seas. Our fishermen are looking for their interests to be strongly and effectively represented at the Fisheries Council in Brussels. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I intend to do.
We recognise that our fishermen are looking for a fair deal on TACs and that Northern Ireland's fishermen are looking to be protected from the full impact of the Hague preference system. We know that our fishermen are not happy with the Commission's proposals for reducing fishing fleets—and certainly not with the erosion of UK quotas at the hands of quota hoppers.
Conservative Members are facing up to those problems. Not for us the playing of politics, using the livelihoods of Britain's fishermen in some tawdry little game that has nothing to do with fishing and everything to do with trying to embarrass the Government. We will have none of that. We will leave that to Opposition Members, but to treat one of our country's oldest and finest industries with such contempt is to the eternal shame of Opposition Members. We can represent the interests of fishermen more effectively if we go to Brussels with the wholehearted support of the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 316.

Division No. 30]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blair, Tony


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Blunkett, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashton, Joseph
Boyes, Roland


Austin-Walker, John
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Byers, Stephen


Beith, A J
Caborn, Richard


Bell, Stuart
Callaghan, Jim


Benn, Tony
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)





Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hall, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Chidgey, David
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hattersley, Roy


Church, Ms Judith
Henderson, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hume, John


Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dobson, Frank
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Eastham, Ken
Khabra, Piara S


Ennis, Jeffrey
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Faulds, Andrew
Litherland, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Livingstone, Ken


Fisher, Mark
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Flynn, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foulkes, George
McAllion, John


Fraser, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Galbraith, Sam
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Galloway, George
McCrea, Rev William


Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


Garrett, John
McFall, John


George, Bruce
McGrady, Eddie


Gerrard, Neil
McKelvey, William


Gilbert, Dr John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McLeish, Henry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Robert


Gordon, Ms Mildred
McMaster, Gordon


Graham, Thomas
McNamara, Kevin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Madden, Max


Grocott, Bruce
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gunnell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Mallon, Seamus
Rooney, Terry


Mandelson, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Salmond, Alex


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Peter


Meale, Alan
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steel, Sir David


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Ms Marjorie
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Dr Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Straw, Jack


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Oakes, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Thumham, Peter


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Orme, Stanley
Touhig, Don


Paisley, Rev Ian
Trickett, Jon


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Pearson, Ian
Tyler, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Walker, Sir Harold


Pike, Peter L
Wallace, James


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew


Prescott, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Wigley, Dafydd


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Reid, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Rendel, David
Wray, Jimmy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wright, Dr Tony


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. David Clelland and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Bates, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Batiste, Spencer



Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Biffen, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Sir Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Peter
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Goodlad, Alastair


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David




Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heath, Sir Edward


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Heseltine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Cope, Sir John
Higgins, Sir Terence


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Critchley, Sir Julian
Hordern, Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Michael


Curry, David
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jessel, Toby


Dunn, Bob
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Eggar, Tim
Jopling, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
King, Tom


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evennett, David
Knight Greg (Derby N)


Faber, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fabricant, Michael
Knox, Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kynoch, George


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fishburn, Dudley
Lamont, Norman


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forth, Eric
Legg, Barry


Fowler, Sir Norman
Leigh, Edward


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Freeman, Roger
Lidington, David






Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shersby, Sir Michael


MacGregor, John
Sims, Sir Roger


MacKay, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Madel, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Major, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Newton, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waldegrave, William


Patten, John
Walden, George


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Young, Sir George


Ryder, Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 304.

Division No. 31]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Sir Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Fry, Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Gale, Roger



Brazier, Julian
Gallie, Phil


Bright, Sir Graham
Gardiner, Sir George


Brooke, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butcher, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Churchill, Mr
Hanley, Jeremy


Clappison, James
Hannam, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Heath, Sir Edward


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Sir John
Hendry, Charles


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heseltine, Michael


Couchman, James
Hicks, Sir Robert


Cran, James
Higgins, Sir Terence


Critchley, Sir Julian
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Curry, David
Horam, John






Hordern, Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Paice, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Patten, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hurd, Douglas
Pickles, Eric


Jack, Michael
Porter, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Portillo, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Richards, Rod


Jopling, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


King, Tom
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Knapman, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Knox, Sir David
Ryder, Richard


Kynoch, George
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Lamont, Norman
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Sir Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Sir John


Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stem, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mellor, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael



Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Willetts, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wilshire, David


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Watts, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Wheeler, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Dr John


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Allen, Graham
Dafis, Cynog


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joseph
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dixon, Don


Beith, A J
Dobson, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Donohoe, Brian H


Benn, Tony
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Roger
Ennis, Jeffrey


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blair, Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Keith
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Callaghan, Jim
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrett, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gilbert, Dr John


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Godsiff, Roger


Chidgey, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Church, Ms Judith
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David



Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy


Corston, Ms Jean
Henderson, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hendron, Dr Joe


Cox, Tom
Heppell, John


Cummings, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David






Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoey, Kate
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Milburn, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Morgan, Rhodri


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hoyle, Doug
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardey)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mullin, Chris


Hume, John
Murphy, Paul


Hutton, John
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Illsley, Eric
Oakes, Gordon


Ingram, Adam
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Hara, Edward


Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Janner, Greville
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Orme, Stanley


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môon)
Parry, Robert


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Gerald
Powell, Sr Raymond (Ogmore)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Prescott, John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John


Litherland, Robert
Rendel, David


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Loyden, Eddie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Rowlands, Ted


McCrea, Rev William
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salmond, Alex


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGrady, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shore, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


Maclennan, Robert
Simpson, Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel



Mallon, Seamus
Spellar, John


Mandelson, Peter
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Sir David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stevenson, George


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)





Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wicks, Malcolm


Thumham, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Wilson, Brian


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tyler, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Walker, Sir Harold
Wright, Dr Tony


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Ms Joan



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. David Clelland and


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document COM(96)641 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A rumour is spreading round Westminster that a car park pass in the name of an hon. Member is being used by someone else who is associated with the leadership of the official Opposition. Will you confirm that car park passes should be used only by those who are officially authorised to use them?

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not deal in rumours.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 18th December, do adjourn till Monday 13th January.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

COUNTY COURTS

That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2958), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

COMMUNITY RAILWAY POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10003/95, relating to the development of the Community's railways, and 9654/96, the Commission's White Paper on the revitalisation of the Community's railways; and endorses the Government's position on the actions proposed by the Commission.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FLOOD PREVENTION AND LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That at the meeting of the Committee on Monday 13th January, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)), the Chairman shall put any Question necessary to dispose of any Motion which may be made in relation to the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill at half-past Two o'clock, if not previously concluded.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Children's Hospital (Manchester)

Ms Ann Coffey: The 1,000 names of Stockport residents on this petition were collected by Mr. and Mrs. Geldard and their family. They are determined that the recommendations of the Ashworth report be implemented so that no other family should have to undergo the pain and anguish that they have suffered and still suffer. The petition states:
In December 1995 10-year-old Nicholas Geldard died of a brain haemorrhage after a 12-hour ordeal. He had been shunted between four hospitals because there were no paediatric intensive care beds available in Manchester. An inquiry into Nicholas's death found many failings in the local health service and made major recommendations.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to ensure the urgent establishment of single specialist children's hospital in Manchester where children can be diagnosed and treated; that in the interim all children's intensive care services are reorganised to ensure that children's lives are not put at risk through bad organisation; and that those hospitals with paediatric intensive care beds be ordered to publish details of usage of those beds and how many children have been turned away each month, so the public can make sure that every sick child in need has access to a local intensive care bed.
To lie upon the Table.

Green Belt

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the protection of the green belt. There is no doubt that the green belt policy, which has been in place for almost 50 years, has been successful.
The metropolitan green belt is well established. Most of my constituency lies within it. Without it, we probably would have had urban sprawl and ribbon development all the way between London and Oxford, if not further afield. The green belt policy is certainly firmly supported by the two local authorities that cover my constituency—South Buckinghamshire district council and Wycombe district council.
There is always the need for constant vigilance of the green belt. There is constant development pressure on my constituency, which already has three motorways—the M4, the M25 and the M40.

Mr. Anthony Steen: There is no doubt that there is pressure on the green belt, but does my hon. Friend know of the plan to build 868,000 more houses in the south-east of England by 2011? That will certainly put enormous pressure on the green belt.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. We need to try to ensure that as many of those houses as possible are built in urban areas on reclaimed derelict land, rather than in the green belt where they would take up more of our lovely countryside.
There is constant pressure on the green belt. As well as the three motorways in my constituency, there is gravel extraction, the proposed expansion of terminal 5 at Heathrow, the complementary relocation of the Perry Oaks sludge treatment works to Iver, the Eton rowing trench and the Maidenhead flood relief scheme. I am glad to say that we saw off the threatened Central Railway project.
The Maidenhead flood relief scheme is under construction by the Environment Agency. One might think that a body called the Environment Agency would be particularly concerned about the environment. Construction of the scheme has only just begun, yet in a letter from the chairman of Dorney parish council, Mr. Ken Richmond tells me:
it is becoming apparent that the Environment Agency has little or no interest in the local environment or in our opinions as to how the problems which the Agency is causing could be addressed.
Mr. Richmond also sent me three photographs of the desecration that the Environment Agency has already caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reproduce photographs in Hansard. I wish it were; it would probably be a little bit more interesting if it were illustrated. All that evidence underlines the need to adopt an absolutist policy on protecting the green belt. There should be no exceptions to the policy; we must have a very tough approach and be vigorous at all times.
Given the context, I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I read with some amazement the latest consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment, which is entitled:
Proposed New Permitted Development Right To Extend The Garden Of A Dwellinghouse.
It was published last month, and says:
The Department is concerned that the benefits of requiring a planning application are not significant".
I strongly challenge that assertion. I believe that they are significant and that the damage that would be done if one did not have to get planning permission to extend a garden into the green belt has been grossly underestimated by my hon. Friend's Department.
The paper goes on:
Concern has been expressed to the Department that the requirement to obtain planning permission … is an unnecessary burden.
Could my hon. Friend tell me by whom that concern has been expressed? I was unaware of a great clamour for a change in the law in this respect. Most people understand that they need planning permission and accept it.
The paper continues:
It is argued that neighbouring householders and other users of adjacent land would not be adversely affected".
I beg to differ with that too. Neighbouring householders could be severely adversely affected by the proposal. Indeed, some already have difficulty with what people do in their gardens. If the new right were introduced, life would be made even more difficult for them. The paper states:
very little is … gained in planning terms by the current controls in this area.
I strongly disagree with that too.
On the document's second page—its main virtue being its brevity—which is also to do with extending a garden, it says:
Householders would … be able to fence the land, erect porches, garden sheds, tennis courts, garages and oil tanks, and install swimming pools, satellite antenna and hard surfaces subject to the same restrictions currently set out in the Order for existing gardens.
That could all be done without any planning permission.
The next paragraph says:
There would be no restriction to the area which could be added to a curtilage under the proposed permitted development right.
In ordinary language, that means that one could buy a five-acre field, fence round it, make it one's garden and, over a period of time, build any number of swimming pools, tennis courts or whatever.
I received a response to that from the director of planning services of South Buckinghamshire district council, Mr. Paul Geehan, who is an excellent planning officer. He said:
I was absolutely amazed to receive the attached consultation paper from the DOE. Essentially the proposed changes in planning rules would allow householders to annex an area of countryside, including the Green Belt, and incorporate it into their garden. They would then have the same permitted development rights to build in the extended gardens as currently exist in existing gardens or grounds of houses. These include covered swimming pools, domestic stable blocks, domestic garages, sheds, laying a hard surface, summerhouses, etc. Providing these buildings were more than 5 metres from the dwelling, no higher than 3 metres (with a flat roof) or 4 metres (with a ridged roof) and did not cover more



than 50 per cent. of the total curtilage excluding the original dwelling, basically people could do what they liked providing it stayed ancillary to the residential use.
With your intimate knowledge of the green belt, you do not need me to tell you the sort of things people get up to and the pressure the area is under. The proposal now before us would give a green light to urbanising the Green Belt and if it goes ahead, I believe its impact would be disastrous.

Mr. Steen: I follow my hon. Friend's argument about the green belt and I agree with it, but that is as far as I would go. Would he be happy to confine his remarks to the green belt? Does he agree that extensions should be allowed to houses and in green fields that are surplus to agricultural use, as set out in the Green Paper?

Mr. Smith: I am not at all sure about that. My main concern is with the green belt, because the whole of my constituency lies within it. My hon. Friend is better qualified to speak on other matters.
The planning officer continued:
As an example of what could be done, a householder living in a property on the edge of the Green Belt could buy the next field, annex it to his property and build over at least half the field. Providing the use were for the householder and his family, subject to the height restriction already mentioned they could build an indoor swimming pool and changing area, a stable block and other buildings for pets, a tennis court, a new drive, a multi-car garage block, a recreation complex (e.g. snooker/gymnasium), sheds, domestic workshops, greenhouses, caravan hardstanding area, summerhouses, a chapel etc., etc., etc. Even if one of these developments were carried out, Green Belt policy would be seriously undermined. In addition of course, there would be nothing in planning terms to stop playing fields or areas of open space being annexed. The proposal seems to be in conflict with national policy on keeping Green Belts open (PPG2) and on policies which stress the value of recreation and open space (PPG17).
I have had a similar letter from Stoke Poges parish council, where I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) lives; he has considerable knowledge of the area. The clerk there said:
These dangers are already apparent in Stoke Poges. For example, I enclose a map of some land at the rear of properties in West End Lane and Park Road indicating where fences have been erected partitioning off a field in the green belt. It is very important to preserve these fringe areas of green belt otherwise the extent of the green belt will be eroded and its aims and objects impaired. In this case not only is the green belt affected but public footpaths interfered with.
The purposes of the green belt are set out in planning policy guidance note 2. They include the aims
to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
and
to safeguard surrounding countryside from further encroachment.
In my view, although it sounds like a modest measure of deregulation, the Department of the Environment's proposal could be the thin end of the wedge. It undermines the objectives of PPG2, and I hope that when the consultation comes to an end the Department will throw it out.

Sir Michael Shersby: With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I should like to contribute briefly to this important debate.
When I first saw the deregulation news release from the Department of the Environment, I thought for a moment that the publication date had to be 1 April, in which case I could have understood why it had been sent to me. I certainly thought that it was a hoax of the first order.
I am astonished and amazed that the release could have crept out of the Department under the guise of deregulation. I have such respect for my hon. Friend the Minister that I can only assume that he was away on holiday when it was sent out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has correctly pointed out a number of things that could happen if the ghastly proposal ever came to fruition. The owner of the extended garden would probably want to fence it. That would result in small pockets of land, or whole fields, sprouting fences up to 2 m high without the need for planning permission. That would break up the countryside and damage the all-important concept of openness, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well aware is one of the crucial criteria for green belt land.
Since half a garden may be covered with buildings, sheds, hard-standings and the like, developments could include multi-storey garages, indoor or outdoor swimming pools, recreation rooms and stable blocks—later perhaps to be converted to a granny bungalow when the owner discovers that he does not have any horses. Although existing rights of way would not be expunged, one can imagine that they might soon be obstructed, or that the owner might try to have cross-field paths legally closed on the ground of lack of use. As we all know, most people are reluctant to cross what looks like a private garden. Such rights of way might be diverted to the edge of the property.
What about a person who wanted to conduct some activities which are unacceptable in the green belt? He could buy a house bordering it, buy the land behind the house, fence that land and then conduct the activity while claiming that it was related to the amenities of the house and within its curtilage. Alternatively, the person might already own the land behind the house, buy the house, unite the two sites and proceed to behave as I have described.
The Department might say that such suggestions are far-fetched, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, given his knowledge of the subject, will readily agree that such manoeuvres can take place. They are real problems, which arise in real life.
The proposal, were it to come to pass, would create what I can only describe as shed city on the green belt. It would set neighbour against neighbour. It would be a nightmare for planning officers, for councillors of every kind, and, not least, for hon. Members. We would be faced at our constituency surgeries by angry constituents who had discovered that they could do absolutely nothing about the buildings that had sprouted up on the green belt land near their homes.
It is a matter of great regret that there are only a few days to object to the proposal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House that he is willing to consider extending the period for consultation so that elected representatives of every kind can have the opportunity to make their objections known.
I am sorry to say that I feel that the consultation paper is the most ill thought-out, environmentally damaging and unsustainable suggestion that the planning profession has


been requested to respond to in recent times. It is difficult to believe that the Department is serious, particularly at a time of increasing environmental awareness and support for the protection of the countryside for its own sake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield rightly asked what are the concerns that have been referred to in the consultation document and have apparently been expressed to the Department. There is no evidence to support what has been asserted. The amount of concern and the importance to be attached to it needs to be seriously questioned. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am running out of puff. I regret to say that I strongly oppose the Department's proposal, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the effect that it might have on the effectiveness of Thames valley water, which has helped to restore my voice to this debate.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for providing the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the green belt, and about the suburbanisation of the countryside. What better example of that can there be than the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary who is to reply to the debate? Croydon was once a wonderful rural area, but it is now totally suburban. There is something to be said for guarding against the expansion of the green belt.
I would like to throw in the caveat that we must distinguish between green belt land and green-field sites. The idea that green-field sites might end up full of tarmacadamed drives, stable blocks, granny flats and swimming pools seems to suggest that people who own their own land will lower the value of that land. Self-interest and private enterprise are the hallmarks of the Conservative party, and deregulation is at the centre of our economic policy. I am fortunate enough to chair the Conservative party's Back-Bench committee on deregulation.
I agree that the inclusion of the green belt extension is a damaging precedent, but the use of alternative land means that green fields go fallow. That is a tremendous burden on the public purse, and the money could be used for something useful. One must conclude that people who own land will use it to the best advantage, and we must remember that there is a distinction between the green belt and green fields.

The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We must congratulate the Environment Agency on one point. It now contains the National Rivers Authority, which was responsible for the glass of water that allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) to conclude his speech.
This has been a much more entertaining debate than I expected—that was this week's understatement. When the Government publish a consultation document, we like

to receive varied opinions and reactions to it. We try to put the document in the simplest of forms so that it can get the fullest of answers. This evening, we have had the fullest of answers, with two of my hon. Friends on one side and one on the other.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on raising this matter. By the time he finished, I had visions of Barnum and Bailey or Ringling Brothers' circus being parked in his and his neighbours' back yards. That was a slight exaggeration. There is a consultation document, and I shall take the points raised in the debate on board. We will read tomorrow the points raised by my hon. Friends, and ensure that they go into the consultation.
We accepted that effective limits would be set by the criteria that the land must form part of the curtilage of the house and be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the house. The slight exaggerations that we heard this evening—although emphasising a point—were a little beyond the pale. We are not talking about huge garden extensions that cover large parts of the countryside and change its real nature. We have issued the consultation document on the proposals, and we specifically asked for views on the principle and the detail. Careful attention will be paid to those views. It is worth reiterating that this is part of a full package that includes policy planning guidance note 2, which refers to green belts.
It is worth stating one or two facts about green belts to emphasise the importance of bringing the discussion document into perspective. Green belts are popular at home and are widely admired abroad. I remember as a child looking at pictures of the English countryside, and it is a beautiful part of the English scenery that we all know—including those who come here as tourists. Since 1979, the extent of green belt land has more than doubled, and it now covers 12 per cent. of England—some 3.8 million acres. This also applies to the metropolitan green belt—as has been mentioned this evening—which covers a substantial part of the region around London and the home counties. About 21 per cent. of the south-east is formally designated as green belt, and it encompasses some of our thriving towns. Green belt land is very important—it remains an essential tool for containing urban sprawl and it is one of our major assets.
Housing policy and the difficulties with development that we will encounter were mentioned. When discussing that policy we have to recognise that the Government have acted in various ways to ensure that development and new households—the demand for which is there, whether we like it or not—are brought to so-called brown land. We are already succeeding—about 50 per cent. of new dwellings are on brown land and we hope that that figure will rise.
I appreciate my hon. Friends' comments, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield and for Uxbridge, both of whose constituencies are on the edges of London. It is vital that we retain the green belt and I back my hon. Friends all the way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.